*1 Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery, ECF Nos. 72, 82, to amend the protective order, ECF No. 73, and to extend the discovery period, ECF No. 80. Having considered the parties' written and oral arguments, I now deny the motions.

Plaintiffs seek to recover Medicare reimbursements under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA). See ECF No. 34 (FAC) ¶¶ 11-12. They own assigned claims from Medicare Advantage Plans that Defendants allegedly owed reimbursement, id. ¶¶ 12-13, and they alleged several “exemplar” claims to demonstrate their injury.[1] Id. ¶¶ 79-115.

Early on, the parties jointly moved for a protective order as to certain personal and medical information of Medicare patients. ECF No. 55. The court granted the joint motion and limited certain disclosures to the pleaded exemplar claims. ECF No. 57.

During discovery, Plaintiffs sought information about seven additional Medicare beneficiaries (the “new exemplars”). ECF No. 72 ¶ 9. They also sought “Section 111” data—internal reports Defendants use to match Medicare claims with Defendants' MSPA obligations. Id. ¶¶ 10-14. Defendants objected, contending information about the new exemplars was irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims and also shielded from discovery by the protective order. ECF No. 76 ¶¶ 7, 13. That led to Plaintiffs' motion to compel relating to the new exemplars—plus the Section 111 data—and to their motion to amend the protective order. ECF Nos. 72, 73. With those motions pending, Plaintiffs served requests for admission about the new exemplars. Defendants again objected based on relevance and the protective order, and Plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel. ECF No. 82. Plaintiffs also moved to extend the discovery period to evaluate the significance of any new data received after the motions to compel. ECF No. 80 ¶ 11.

Because the motions to compel center around the same data, I address them together.

As Defendants point out, Plaintiffs have not moved to amend their complaint to add the new exemplars. ECF No. 76 ¶ 7. Thus, Plaintiffs have not shown that discovery on the new exemplars is “relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiffs argue that the information is relevant because “Plaintiffs never limited their claims to the four exemplars in the FAC.” ECF No. 72 at 18; see also id. at 4 ¶ 6. They contend that information about other potential claims is relevant because their pleaded claim targets Defendants' entire pattern of alleged conduct (denying payment or reimbursement as a primary payer). In other words, Plaintiffs argue, once they have alleged entitlement to reimbursement as to one or more underlying claims, they get discovery as to all potential underlying claims. But this misunderstands the nature of an MSPA claim.

The MSPA establishes a private cause of action “in the case of a primary plan which fails to provide for primary payment (or appropriate reimbursement).” MSP Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Fla., Inc., 918 F.3d 1312, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A)). And cross-references in § 1395y(b)(3)(A) refer to payment obligations for “any item or service.” § 1395y(b)(2)(A). Thus, each failure to pay or reimburse is the basis for a separate MSPA claim: Plaintiffs cannot use a single pleaded claim to recover on dozens or hundreds of claims they have not pleaded or given Defendants an opportunity to respond to before trial.[2] See Provisional Discovery Order, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. MGA Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7974267 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2020) (denying motion to expand discovery beyond exemplar claims in complaint because “[i]f the action is limited to the two individuals named in the complaint, then Plaintiff should be entitled to discovery relevant to those two claims as opposed to all No Fault claims”); see also Liese v. Indian River County Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334, 355 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that ““the court ... has the authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings, and ... the parties ... have no entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or defenses that are not already identified in the pleadings.” (alterations in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee's note to 2000 amendment)).

*2 For these reasons, Plaintiffs have not shown that the requested discovery was “relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Their motions to compel are therefore denied.

Moreover, the protective order restricted discovery to “production of records relating to the currently identified exemplar claims.” ECF No. 57 at 1. So even if the information were relevant, Defendants could not produce it under the protective order, which Plaintiffs sought to modify only when moving to compel.

If Plaintiffs had pleaded the new exemplars—making their information relevant—it would have been appropriate to modify the protective order as to those exemplars. But even that would not mean Plaintiffs could have the broad discovery they seek. They seek Section 111 reports on “all Medicare eligible claimants” that received payments or settlements from Defendants. ECF No. 72 ¶ 11 (emphasis added). At the hearing, Plaintiffs explained that they did not know how many additional claims this data might uncover. But one thing is certain: turning over Section 111 reports would mean turning over large volumes of personal information guaranteed not to be relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. By contrast, Plaintiffs already have access to the realm of potential claims that they have been assigned through accessing portions of the Section 111 data that primary payers like Defendants submit to a government portal. ECF No. 76 ¶ 23. The sensitive nature of the Section 111 data, combined with its broad sweep, are reason to preclude disclosure. Thus, even assuming Plaintiffs have shown that some subset of the requested Section 111 data is relevant, they have not shown that modifying the protective order is appropriate.

That leaves Plaintiffs' motion to extend the discovery period. ECF No. 80. That motion is premised on the need for the other requested discovery. Id. ¶ 9. As discussed above, Plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery on those claims. Thus, there is no reason to extend the discovery period.

Plaintiffs' motions to compel (ECF Nos. 72, 29), to amend the protective order (ECF No. 73), and to extend the discovery period (ECF No. 80) are DENIED.

SO ORDERED on April 19, 2022.