United Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Next Health, LLC
United Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Next Health, LLC
2019 WL 13200049 (N.D. Tex. 2019)
September 20, 2019
Rutherford, Rebecca, United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court ordered the Entity Defendants to produce ESI, including documents that have been reviewed and determined to be non-privileged, a privilege log, and all unreviewed documents subject to a clawback provision. This information is important for the Court to determine which documents are privileged and which are not, and to help the Plaintiffs in their case.
Additional Decisions
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
NEXT HEALTH, LLC, et al., Defendants
v.
NEXT HEALTH, LLC, et al., Defendants
Case No. 3:17-cv-0243-E-BT
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Filed September 20, 2019
Counsel
Adam Joseph Sinton, Benjamin Daniel Van Horn, Sinton Scott Minock & Kerew, Denver, CO, Andrew G. Jubinsky, Leda Pauline Juengerman, Timothy A. Daniels, Figari & Davenport LLP, Dallas, TX, Joseph James Minock, SSMK Legal LLC, Atlanta, GA, Nicole Marie Bigman, Scott Preston Kerew, Sinton Scott Minock & Kerew, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs.Alexandra Hunt, Dallas, TX, Connor Nash, Nash Law PLLC, Dallas, TX, Daniel L. Wyde, Wyde & Associates, Dallas, TX, James S. Bell, James S. Bell PC, Dallas, TX, Ralph Ritch Roberts, III, Law Offices of R. Ritch Roberts, Dallas, TX, for Defendant Next Health LLC.
Alexandra Hunt, Dallas, TX, Connor Nash, Nash Law PLLC, Dallas, TX, Daniel L. Wyde, Wyde & Associates, Dallas, TX, James S. Bell, James S. Bell PC, Dallas, TX, for Defendants United Toxicology LLC, Medicus Laboratories LLC, US Toxicology LLC, American Laboratories Group LLC.
Alexandra Hunt, Dallas, TX, James S. Bell, James S. Bell PC, Dallas, TX, for Defendants Apex Pharma LLC, Executive Healthcare LLC, Total Pharma LLC, True Labs LLC, Dallasite Inc.
Brian Daniel Poe, Brian D. Poe Attorney PLLC, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant Andrew Hillman.
Michael J. Lang, David F. Wishnew, Mark T.J. Jones, Crawford Wishnew & Lang PLLC, Dallas, TX, for Defendant Pioneer Laboratories LLC.
Erik Bugen, Beaumont, TX, Pro Se.
Rutherford, Rebecca, United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' “Motion to Enforce Compliance with the Court's Prior Discovery Order,” seeking an order requiring Defendants Next Health, LLC, American Laboratories Group, LLC, Medicus Laboratories, LLC, United Toxicology, LLC, and U.S. Toxicology, LLC (the “Entity Defendants”) to immediately produce all reviewed documents that have been marked as non-privileged and all documents that have not been reviewed subject to a clawback provision; to serve a privilege log identifying all documents that have been reviewed and identified as privileged; and to pay Plaintiff's expenses in bringing this Motion. Mot. (ECF No. 275). The Motion is GRANTED with production to occur according to the following schedule:
1. The Entity Defendants will produce all documents that have been reviewed and determined to be non-privileged by September 27, 2019;
2. The Entity Defendants will produce a privilege log by November 1, 2019, indicating which documents have been reviewed, determined to be privileged, and withheld;
3. In addition to all reviewed, non-privileged documents, the Entity Defendants will produce all unreviewed documents—privileged or non-privileged—subject to a clawback provision by November 1, 2019; and
4. During the period between September 27, 2019, and November 1, 2019, the Entity Defendants will produce all documents that are reviewed and determined to be non-privileged on a rolling basis.
5. Additionally, the Entity Defendants will file written reports on October 11, 2019, and October 25, 2019, updating the Court on the status of document production.
The Court defers awarding Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing the Motion until the Entity Defendants' document production is complete on November 1, 2019. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides that, if a motion to compel is granted, or if the requested discovery is provided after the motion to compel was filed, the Court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees,” except that “the court must not order this payment if: (i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). On November 1, 2019, Plaintiffs must file an application for attorney's fees with supporting evidence establishing the amount of reasonable expenses and attorney's fees to be awarded under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). The Entity Defendants may file a response to Plaintiffs' application by November 15, 2019.
SO ORDERED.