I. BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. and Health Options, Inc. (collectively “Florida Blue”[1]), brought this action against DaVita, Inc. (“DaVita”) alleging it had engaged in a “deceptive and illegal scheme” whereby it used premium assistance from the American Kidney Fund (“AKF”), a charitable organization to which DaVita made significant donations, to “steer” patients who were eligible for Medicaid and/or Medicare to Florida Blue plans. (Doc. 2.) According to Florida Blue, DaVita's “scheme” allowed it to collect higher reimbursements for dialysis treatments provided to Florida Blue members at its facilities, than it otherwise would have received under Medicaid or Medicare. (Id. at 3-5; Doc. 53 at 2-3.) On October 28, 2019, DaVita filed its Answer and Additional Defenses, asserting, inter alia, that Florida Blue's claims were barred because “Florida Blue had actual or constructive knowledge” of the alleged wrongful conduct and by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and ratification. (See Doc. 32 at 32 (Additional Defenses, ¶¶ 11-14); see also Doc. 53 at 3.)

On November 7, 2019, DaVita filed a motion for summary judgment alleging, in part, that Florida Blue “knew that its members received charitable premium assistance from AKF because Florida Blue received and cashed checks from AKF for membership premiums” and “routinely approved requests from its members to use AKF assistance.” (Doc. 33 at 7.) Florida Blue argued that the motion for summary judgement was due to be denied and that the parties should be allowed to proceed with discovery. (Doc. 40 at 8.) The Court denied DaVita's motion for summary judgment as premature. (Doc. 56.)

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3.04,[2] DaVita moves the Court for an order compelling Florida Blue to provide proper answers to DaVita's First and Second Sets of Interrogatories, served on December 20, 2019 and February 24, 2020, respectively, and to produce responsive materials to DaVita's First Set of Requests for Production, served on December 20, 2019. (Doc. 53 at 4-19.) DaVita argues that its discovery requests are relevant to the claims in this case and its affirmative defenses. (See generally Docs. 53 & 64.) DaVita also argues that Florida Blue's objections are “pure relevance objections[,] go to the admissibility of evidence, rather than its discoverability,” and should be overruled. (Doc. 53 at 2.) Florida Blue, on the other hand, argues that DaVita's requests seek information and materials that are not relevant or proportional to the claims or defenses in the case, or are otherwise improper. (Docs. 54 & 65.)

II. STANDARD

*2 It is clear that the parties may obtain discovery:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The rules “strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985). “The discovery process is designed to fully inform the parties of the relevant facts involved in their case.” United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 695, 698 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 1990) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). “The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result.” Oliver v. City of Orlando, No. 6:06-cv-1671-Orl-31DAB, 2007 WL 3232227, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958)). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion requiring judicial intervention. Furthermore, “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility.” Middle District Discovery (2015) at 3.

Motions to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir.1984). The trial court's exercise of discretion regarding discovery orders will be sustained absent a finding of abuse of that discretion to the prejudice of a party. See Westrope, 730 F.2d at 731. The party bringing a motion to compel discovery “bears the burden of demonstrating that the information it seeks is relevant.” Costa v. Metro. Life. Ins. Co., No. 6:17-cv-714-Orl-40TBS, 2018 WL 1635642, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2018). For the Court to be able to rule on a motion to compel, it must “be specifically targeted to specific requests and must have reasons why the motion should be granted.” Newman v. Sun Capital, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-445-FtM-29SPC, 2010 WL 11470980, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2010).

“A party objecting to a request for production must: (1) ‘state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons;’ (2) ‘state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection;’ and (3) ‘[a]n objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.’ ” Loc. Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-236-Orl-40TBS, 2018 WL 293 8393, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)). “The rules leave no place for boilerplate style objections.” Id. (citations omitted). Local Rule 3.04(a) provides:

M.D. Fla. R. 3.04(a). Local rules “have the force of law,” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted), and “[t]he importance of these Rules cannot be overstated.” United States v. Fleming, No. 3:09-cv-153-J-34TEM, 2010 WL 5128293, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2010).

III. DISCUSSION

Before addressing the specific discovery requests and corresponding objections, the Court will address some general arguments raised by the parties. First, to the extent Florida Blue objected to DaVita's discovery requests based on confidentiality concerns that have since been addressed by the Parties’ Stipulated HIPPA Qualified Protective Order, such objections are overruled. (See Docs. 55 & 58.) Responsive discovery materials that Florida Blue withheld based on these objections that have not been produced already must be produced in accordance with the Protective Order within fourteen (14) days of this Order.

Additionally, with respect to Florida Blue's agreement to produce responsive discovery materials and information related to DaVita, that discovery should already have been produced. (See Doc. 54 at 12 (“This is particularly true, given that Florida Blue has already agreed to search for documents responsive to most of DaVita's Requests to the extent they relate to DaVita.”).) To the extent Florida Blue failed to produce such materials, it must do so within fourteen (14) days of this Order.[3] See Crossman v. Carrington Mortgage Servs., LLC, No. 3:19-cv-1081-J-39PDB, 2020 WL 2114639, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2020) (“Objections to portions of a document request do not excuse the responding party from producing those documents to which there is no objection.”) Moreover, to the extent Florida Blue objected to producing materials because they were “not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” such objections are due to be overruled as this outdated language was removed from Rule 26(b)(1) in 2015.[4] See Sharbaugh v. Beaudry, No. 3:16cv126/MCR/EMT, 2017 WL 5988221, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 5, 2017) (rejecting objections based on the outdated language of Rule 26(b)(1)) (quoting In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016) (“The 2015 amendments thus eliminated the ‘reasonably calculated’ phrase as a definition for the scope of permissible discovery. Despite this clear change, many courts [and lawyers] continue to use the phrase. Old habits die hard.”)).

A. Interrogatories

*4 First, DaVita argues that Florida Blue's responses and objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 9 were deficient. (Doc. 53 at 6-10.) In Interrogatory No. 4, DaVita requested that Florida Blue “[i]dentify the date on which [it] first became aware that members who received dialysis services from Fresenius Medical Care (“FMC”) were receiving charitable premium assistance from the AKF or other third parties.” (Id. at 6.) Florida Blue responded as follows:

(Id. (emphasis omitted).) DaVita argues that this information “is discoverable because it will establish how long Florida Blue has known about the use of premium assistance by dialysis patients.” (Id. at 6-7.) According to DaVita, this information is relevant to its claims and defenses, including “Additional Defenses 11-14.” (Id. at 7.) DaVita also argues that “discoverability of this information is not limited solely to DaVita patients” as “Florida Blue's acceptance of AKF premium assistance by patients of DaVita, FMC, and other dialysis providers directly undermines its claims that it was unaware of patients’ use of charitable premium assistance or that the system constitutes a ‘deceptive and illegal scheme.’ ” (Id.)

Florida Blue counters that the request improperly seeks discovery that is not related to DaVita, its patients, or the alleged misconduct and is, thus, not relevant to this case. (Doc. 54 at 10.) Florida Blue also asserts that DaVita makes conclusory allegations rather than showing how this information is relevant and proportional to the claims and defenses in this case. (Id. at 10-11.) The Court is unpersuaded by Florida Blue's arguments, particularly in light of DaVita's arguments regarding AKF and FMC in its Reply (see Doc. 64 at 2-4), and finds the information requested is relevant and proportional to the claims at issue and to DaVita's Additional Defenses. As such, Florida Blue's objections are due to be overruled and the Motion is due to be granted as to Interrogatory No. 4.

Next, Interrogatory No. 5 requested that Florida Blue “explain why [it] has not filed a similar action against FMC concerning its donations to AKF and its patients’ use of charitable premium assistance from AKF.” (Doc. 53 at 7.) Florida Blue responded as follows:

(Id. (emphasis omitted).) DaVita argues that Florida Blue's objections should be overruled and it should be “compelled to explain why it has not sued FMC despite the fact that FMC engaged in the same alleged ‘deceptive and illegal scheme’ that is the focus of this action against DaVita.” (Id.) DaVita argues that the requested information “is discoverable because it would show Florida Blue's improper motive for filing this action against DaVita alone,” and that the requested documents are relevant to its claims and defenses, “including Florida Blue's fraud claims and DaVita's Additional Defenses 11-14.” (Id. at 7-8.)

*5 Interrogatory No. 7 requested that Florida Blue “[i]dentify the date on which [it] first began negotiations with FMC concerning the current Provider Agreement between [Florida Blue] and FMC.” (Id. at 8.) Florida Blue's response was identical to its response to Interrogatory No. 5. (See id. at 7-8.) DaVita argues that this information is discoverable because it will show that “even after Florida Blue learned that FMC was accepting third-party premium assistance, it nonetheless chose to enter [into] a new Provider Agreement with FMC, while also negotiating a new Provider Agreement with DaVita.” (Id.) DaVita claims that Florida Blue brought this action against it only after negotiations of a new Provider Agreement between the parties broke down and DaVita terminated the existing agreement. (Id.) Thus, DaVita argues that the information requested “is relevant to show Florida Blue's true motives in suing DaVita but not FMC, even though both dialysis providers engaged in the same conduct that Florida Blue complains about in this action.” (Id.)

Florida Blue counters that Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7 are improper attempts to inquire into Florida Blue's “true motive” in filing this suit. (Doc. 54 at 12-14.) According to Florida Blue, “a plaintiff's motives for filing a lawsuit are not relevant to the merits of the suit” and DaVita failed to explain how the discovery it seeks falls outside the scope of this rule. (Id. at 13.) Florida Blue also argues that even if relevant, this information “would be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine and would not be discoverable.” (Id.) Moreover, Florida Blue argues, in part, that even if this discovery were relevant, DaVita fails to show it is proportional to the needs of the case. (Id. at 14.) According to Florida Blue, “DaVita's Fresenius-related Requests and Interrogatories seem directed at fishing for sensitive business and negotiation-related information on its primary competitor that has no clear bearing on this case.” (Id. at 15.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish that Interrogatory No. 5 was proper and, as such, Florida Blue's objections are sustained. However, with respect to Interrogatory No. 7, the Court finds that Florida Blue's objections are due to be overruled, and the Motion is due to be granted. The Court is unpersuaded by Florida Blue's arguments based on DaVita's position, as a non-party dialysis provider, defending its motion to quash a third-party subpoena in an unrelated case, DaVita, Inc. v. UnitedHealthcare of Fla., Inc., No. 1:16-mc-00201-WJM-KMT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195746, at 4-5 (D. Col. Nov. 14, 2016).[5] (Doc. 54 at 15-16.) Florida Blue's arguments regarding DaVita's position in that proceeding miss the mark, as the Colorado proceedings to quash a third-party subpoena issued to DaVita in connection with an unrelated case in the Southern District of Florida,[6] were procedurally and factually distinguishable from this case. (See also Doc. 64 at 10.) Here, DaVita has established that some of its discovery requests involving FMC and AKF are relevant to the claims in this case and to its Additional Defenses 11-14. DaVita's assertions that “Florida Blue's knowledge and conduct in accepting AKF charitable premium assistance from DaVita, FMC[,] and other dialysis providers is relevant to determine (1) whether such third-party payments were material to Florida Blue's coverage decision and (2) whether Florida Blue justifiably relied on DaVita's alleged ‘misrepresentations’ ” (Doc. 64 at 5), also provide a sufficient showing of relevance and proportionality, at least with respect to Interrogatory No. 7.

*6 In Interrogatory No. 9, DaVita asked Florida Blue to “[i]dentify any and all procedures [it] implemented to ensure that any BCFL policies and procedures that restrict acceptance of third-party premium assistance from the American Kidney Fund or other organizations complied with the ‘guaranteed issue’ requirements under the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg et. seq. and any applicable Florida Statutes.” (Doc. 53 at 9.) Florida Blue responded as follows:

(Id. at 9-10.) DaVita argues that “Florida Blue should be compelled to explain how it has complied with the letter and spirit of the ACA” because “[t]aking steps to single out populations of patients and exclude them from coverage is not consistent with the purpose of the statute and appears to be a work-around to avoid those protections for patients.” (Id. at 10.) DaVita claims that the steps Florida Blue took to ensure its “policies to restrict acceptance of third-party premium assistance complied with the ACA's ‘guaranteed issue’ requirements are discoverable and relevant.” (Id.)

In its Response, Florida Blue counters that (1) the Interrogatory seeks information “that is wholly unrelated to the case,” (2) “the guaranteed issue provisions could not have anything to do with this case” as “[t]here is no private claim or defense available under the ACA,” (3) the “ACA precludes insurers from refusing to insure individuals based on their medical condition” and DaVita does not suggest or allege that Florida Blue denied “coverage to patients based on their medical condition,” and (4) DaVita's implied suggestion that the ACA's spirit requires insurers to accept third-party premium payments is also wrong as “CMS, the federal agency charged with implementing the ACA ... warned insurers against accepting third-party premium payments, especially from provider-funded entities like AKF.” (Doc. 54 at 17-18 (emphasis omitted).)

*7 In its Reply, DaVita argues, in part, that the requested information was relevant because, if “Florida Blue [was] required to accept third-party payments of premiums from non-profit organizations, such as AKF, then DaVita's alleged conduct could hardly be considered improper or illegal.” (Doc. 64 at 4 n.3.) Although Plaintiff's arguments in its Reply sufficiently establish that the requested information is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, the Interrogatory is nevertheless overbroad. As such, the Motion is due to be granted in part and to the extent that the information requested is limited to “third-party premium assistance from the American Kidney Fund,” as well as DaVita, FMC, and other dialysis providers.

B. Requests for Production of Documents

Second, with respect to Request for Production Nos. 2, 6, 9, 10, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30, DaVita argues that Florida Blue's responses and objections were also deficient and moves to compel the production of responsive materials thereto. (Doc. 53 at 10-20.) In Request No. 2, DaVita requested “all documents that refer to, relate to, or reflect communications with members or providers concerning the use of charitable premium assistance, including but not limited to any communications approving or denying approval for the use of charitable premium assistance.” (Id. at 10.) Florida Blue objected to the Request based on the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, “or any other applicable privilege.” (Id.) Florida Blue also objected to the Request and as being “overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case to the extent that it seeks ‘all documents that refer to, relate to, or reflect’ communications with members or providers concerning the use of charitable premium assistance” and because it was not limited in time or scope. (Id. at 10-11.) Florida Blue also objected to the request as seeking “documents that are not relevant to any claim or defense in this matter because it is not limited to members to dialyze at DaVita facilities.” (Id. at 11.) Additionally, Florida Blue provided as follows:

(Doc. 53 at 11 (emphasis in the original).)

As noted supra, to the extent Florida Blue agreed to produce responsive materials, said materials should already have been produced and any materials withheld due to confidentiality or privilege concerns addressed by the Protective Order should also have been produced. Florida Blue's objections based on overbreadth are well-taken to the extent that the response to this Request shall be limited to communications regarding Florida Blue's use, acceptance, approval, or denial of “AKF premium assistance by patients of DaVita, FMC, and other dialysis providers.” (Doc. 53 at 11.) The Request's temporal scope is also due to be narrowed and the parties are directed to confer and reach an agreement on this issue based on the temporal parameters set out in DaVita's Reply (see Doc. 64 at 8) as well as the allegations in the Complaint.

Similarly, Request No. 6 asked Florida Blue to “[p]roduce all documents concerning the use of charitable premium assistance by [its] members.” (Doc. 53 at 12.) Florida Blue responded with the same objections regarding privilege and confidentiality, overbreadth, undue burden, and lack of proportionality to the extent that the Request “seeks ‘all documents concerning’ the use of charitable premium assistance by Florida Blue Members” and because it was not limited in time or scope. (Id.) Florida Blue also objected to the Request as seeking “information that is irrelevant to any claim or defense in this matter because it is not limited to members who dialyze at DaVita facilities.” (Id.) The Court agrees with Defendant that the Request is overbroad, but will grant the Motion to the extent the Request is limited to responsive materials that relate to “Florida Blue's acceptance of AKF premium assistance” by patients of DaVita, FMC, and other dialysis providers, as these materials are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, including DaVita's Additional Defenses 11-14. (Id. at 12-13.)

*8 In Request No. 9, DaVita asked Florida Blue to “[p]roduce all documents [it] received from any current or former employees of Fresenius Medical Care (‘FMC’) that relate in any way to the allegations in the Complaint.” (Doc. 53 at 13.) Florida Blue responded as follows:

(Id.) Although DaVita claims that the Request is relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, including its Additional Defenses 11-14, the Court agrees with Florida Blue that the request is overly broad. (Id.) As such, the Motion is due to be granted to the extent the Request is limited to documents related to Florida Blue's use, approval, or denial of AKF premium assistance for FMC patients.

Request No. 10 asked Florida Blue to “[p]roduce all documents [it] received from any current or former employees of the American Kidney Fund (“AKF”) that relate in any way to the allegations in the Complaint.” (Doc. 53 at 14.) Florida Blue responded as follows:

(Id.) DaVita claims that the documents Florida Blue received from AKF are discoverable and relevant to show that Florida Blue knew and approved of the conduct it now claims constitutes a ‘deceptive and illegal scheme,’ ” as well as to the claims and defenses in the case, including DaVita's Additional Defenses. (Id.) Florida Blue counters that DaVita has simply made conclusory claims that the information is relevant, rather than showing why it is relevant, while ignoring the proportionality requirement of Rule 26. (Doc. 54 at 10-12.) The Court agrees with Florida Blue that the request is overbroad. However, as Plaintiff has established that the materials are relevant to its Additional Defenses, the Motion is due to be granted to the extent the Request is limited to DaVita and FMC patients.

*9 Document Request No. 25 asked Florida Blue to “[p]roduce all documents showing that [it] approved the use of charitable premium assistance from AKF or other third parties by members who received dialysis services from FMC.” (Doc. 53 at 15.) Florida Blue responded as follows:

(Id.) DaVita claims that these documents are “discoverable and directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this action” and that their relevance is not limited to DaVita patients. (Id.) DaVita contends that “Florida Blue's acceptance of AKF premium assistance by FMC patients directly undermines its claims that it was unaware of patients’ use of charitable premium assistance or that the system constitutes a ‘deceptive and illegal scheme.’ ” (Id. at 15-16.)

Florida Blue responds that DaVita failed to establish relevance or proportionality and argues, in part, that DaVita failed to offer a governor in the event its Motion were to be granted. (Doc. 54 at 10-11.) The Court finds that the Request is relevant to DaVita's Additional Defenses and the Motion should be granted with respect to this Request. As such, Florida Blue's objections overruled.

In Request No. 26, DaVita requested that Florida Blue “[p]roduce documents sufficient to show all payments that [it] received from AKF or other third parties for premiums of members who received dialysis services from DaVita and/or FMC.” (Doc. 53 at 16.) Florida Blue responded as follows:

*10 (Id. (emphasis in the original).) DaVita again claims that these documents are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, including DaVita's Additional Defenses 11-14. (Id. at 16-17.) Moreover, DaVita claims that the relevance of these documents is not limited to DaVita patients since “Florida Blue's acceptance of AKF premium assistance by any patients directly undermines its claims that it was unaware of patients’ use of charitable premium assistance or that the system constitutes a ‘deceptive and illegal scheme.’ ” (Id. at 17.)

Florida Blue asserts the same arguments regarding relevance and proportionality as previously noted. (See Doc. 54 at 10-12.) The Court finds that the materials requested are relevant to DaVita's defenses, and thus discoverable. Thus, the objections are overruled, and the Motion is granted with respect to this Request.

With respect to Request Nos. 28, 29, 30, the Motion is due to be granted in part. In Document Request No. 28, DaVita requested that Florida Blue “[p]roduce any and all documents showing that [it] refused requests by its members to use charitable premium assistance from AKF or other third parties.” (Doc. 53 at 17.) Request No. 29 asked Florida Blue to “[p]roduce any and all documents showing that [it] refused to accept charitable premium assistance from AKF or other third parties.” (Id. at 18.) In Request No. 30, DaVita requested that Florida Blue “[p]roduce documents sufficient to identify every application for insurance that [it] rejected because the applicant received charitable premium assistance from AKF or other third parties.” (Id. at 19.)

Florida Blue's response to these requests were substantially similar, incorporating by reference its general objections, objecting to the requests as “overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence,” and further objecting that they “are not relevant to any claim or defense in this matter because [they] are not limited to members who dialyze at DaVita Facilities.” (Id. at 17-19.) Florida Blue also asserted the following qualified agreement to produce documents in response to these requests: “[s]ubject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and subject to the terms of a HIPAA Qualified and General Protective Order to be entered by the Parties, Florida Blue will produce non-privileged documents in its possession that are responsive to this Request to the extent that they relate to DaVita.” (Id. (emphasis in the original).)

DaVita makes the same arguments regarding these Requests, namely that it was unaware “of a single instance where Florida Blue refused to accept AKF premium assistance,” but that its rejection of even a handful of requests would be relevant and discoverable to the claims and defenses in this action, including DaVita's Additional Defenses 11-14. (Id. at 17-19.) The Court finds these requests to be overbroad in scope as they pertain to Florida Blue's rejection, or purported rejection, of any charitable premium assistance from any other third parties. However, the Motion is granted to the extent the requested materials are limited to applications/applicants who requested or received charitable premium assistance from AKF for treatment at DaVita or FMC.

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Motion is due to be granted in part to the extent DaVita has demonstrated that some of the information and documents requested are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, including it Additional Affirmative Defenses 11-14 (actual and constructive knowledge, waiver, estoppel, and ratification). Moreover, the Court finds that Florida Blue's responses contain “general, non-specific boilerplate objections that are without merit in this Court.” Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. v. Reed Hein & Assocs., LLC, No. 6:17-cv-1542-Orl-31DCI, 2019 WL 7423511, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019). However, the Court also finds that some of DaVita's requests are overbroad as written and due to be narrowed.[8] “Even when a party fails to object with specificity and the court compels a response to a discovery request, the court's order should compel only what is reasonable under the circumstances.” Siddiq v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, Corp., 2016 WL 6936485, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2011). Moreover, “[t]he relevant time frame depends upon the information being sought.” Miner, Ltd. v. Keck, No. 6:19-cv-722-Orl-41TBS, 2019 WL 2869063, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 3, 2019) (“The parties should, through the application of common sense, be able to work this out between themselves. If they fail, then a more detailed motion will be required.”).

*11 Through the application of common sense, the parties are expected to resolve any remaining issues related to scope. Additionally, to the extent practicable, the parties are also directed to confer regarding limiting the universe of documents to a sample size allowing for a more proportional response to some of the discovery requests outlined above. Of note, DaVita acknowledges its willingness to narrow the scope of its requests. Again, the parties are reminded of their duty to work with a spirit of civility and cooperation in reducing any unnecessary burden and cost of conducting discovery.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. DaVita's Motion (Doc. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as outlined in the body of this Order.

2. Florida Blue's complete discovery responses are due within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order.

DONE and ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on March 9, 2021.

In its Motion, DaVita explains that since both Plaintiffs “served identical answers to identical interrogatories and document request,” DaVita reproduced “only one set of answers to interrogatories and document requests.” (Doc. 53 at 6 n.6.) In the Motion and related briefs, the parties also refer to Plaintiffs collectively as “Florida Blue.” As such, for the purposes of this Order, the Court will also refer to Plaintiffs collectively as “Florida Blue.”

As the Motion was filed and fully briefed before the new Local Rules took effect on February 1, 2021, the Court will still refer to and apply the Local Rules in effect at the time the Motion was filed.

To the extent Florida Blue failed to produce documents it had already agreed to produce, as DaVita argues in its subsequent Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 75), the Court will address those specific arguments in a separate order.

Effective December 1, 2015, the “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” language was deleted as “[t]he phrase [had] been used by some, incorrectly, to define the scope of discovery.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), Advisory Committee's Notes to the 2015 Amendments (“The ‘reasonably calculated’ phrase continued to create problems, however, and is removed by these amendments. It is replaced by the direct statement that ‘Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”).

In that unrelated matter, the court granted DaVita's motion to quash a subpoena from an insurance company (UnitedHealth) regarding DaVita's communications with AKF, finding that the subpoena was an attempt around UnitedHealthcare's contract with DaVita, and that DaVita's communications with AKF, neither of whom were named in the principal case between UnitedHealthcare and American Renal Association, were not relevant to “the conduct of one dialysis provider ....” (Doc. 64 at 20-23.)

The principal case giving rise to the subpoena enforcement action, to which DaVita was not a party, is UnitedHealthcare of Florida, Inc., et al. v. American Renal Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-81180-CIV-Marra/Matthewman (S.D. Fla.).

This provision states:

In this regard, DaVita acknowledges that certain requests, such as Request Nos. 26 and 30, “might be satisfied with summary charts or Excel extracts showing the numbers of Florida Blue patients receiving dialysis treatment who also received AKF treatment.” (Doc. 64 at 7.) The parties are expected to cooperate and to find ways to reduce the attendant burden of some of the requests.