*1 THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents [DE 43] and Defendants’ and Nonparty Robert Walter Makuch's Joint Motion to Quash or Alternative Motion for Protective Order [DE 53]. The issue common to both motions is the scope of the litigation before this Court. The parties are engaged in litigation in this District, as well as in litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Aetna Inc. et al. v. Mednax, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-CV-2217-WB (E.D. Pa. 2018) (the “Pennsylvania action”) [DE 41, ¶ 5].

The disputes arise from an Agreement between Aetna Health Management LLC and PMG of Florida [DE 42] under which Aetna agreed to pay for medical services rendered by PMG of Florida to Aetna's insureds. Aetna filed the Pennsylvania action against Mednax, Inc. (“Mednax”), Mednax Services, Inc. (“MSI”), and Pediatrix Medical Group of Florida, Inc. (“PMG Florida”), seeking to recoup payments made under the Agreement and alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, money had and received, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy [DE 41, n.10]. In the case before this Court, Plaintiffs Mednax, MSI, PMG of Florida, and Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc., allege that Aetna breached the Agreement and violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to pursue the Agreement's alternative dispute resolution procedures [DE 42]. This Court denied Aetna's motion to transfer this case to Pennsylvania [DE 41]. The defendants in the Pennsylvania case (Plaintiffs here) have moved to dismiss the Pennsylvania action or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida [DE 41, p. 5], and that motion remains pending.

The Court has reviewed the discovery requests and the subpoena served by Plaintiffs and concludes that a majority of the documents requested pertain to the claims pending in the Pennsylvania action. This (Florida) case does not involve the accuracy of Plaintiffs’ medical coding or the validity of Aetna's fraud allegations. Rather, this case involves the discrete issue of whether Aetna violated the Agreement's alternative dispute resolution provisions by seeking to recoup payments through extra-judicial demands and forced settlement agreements [DE 42]. Thus, discovery in this case must be limited to matters relevant to that issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case....”). To the extent Plaintiffs seek discovery pertaining to the specific claims, codes, and analysis done by Aetna in connection with Aetna's allegations of billing fraud, the discovery is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case, nor is it proportional to the needs of this case.

The Court notes that Aetna has responded to certain of the discovery requests with an offer to produce limited materials (eg., the regression analysis) for inspection subject to the entry of a confidentiality order and/or an agreement on ESI protocol. In instances where the Court sustains Aetna's objections, it is with the understanding that Aetna will in fact produce the items as indicated in its objections, subject to the entry of a confidentiality order and/or an ESI protocol.

*2 Furthermore, the Court notes that many of the items requested by Plaintiffs may be relevant and proportional to the Pennsylvania action. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as limiting discovery in that action and, if the action is ultimately transferred to this District, nothing in this Order shall preclude Plaintiffs from seeking discovery relevant to that action.

Now, having reviewed the discovery requests and the subpoena issued by Plaintiffs, along with the pleadings, previous orders of this Court and the arguments of counsel, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ and Nonparty Robert Walter Makuch's Joint Motion to Quash or Alternative Motion for Protective Order [DE 53] is GRANTED and the subpoena to Robert Walker Makuch is QUASHED. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents [DE 43] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ objections to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 23 are SUSTAINED subject to the understanding that Aetna will in fact produce the items as indicated in its objections, subject to the entry of a confidentiality order and/or an ESI protocol. Defendant's objections to Request Numbers 6, 7, 9, 12, 24, 25, and 26 are OVERRULED and Defendants shall produce responsive documents subject to an agreed confidentiality order to be submitted by the parties. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants claim a privilege to any documents responsive to these requests, Defendants shall prepare and serve a privilege log identifying each document and the basis for the claimed privilege. The parties shall submit an agreed confidentiality order to the Court within 14 days of the date of this Order, and Defendants shall produce the documents ordered herein to be produced within 14 days following entry of the confidentiality order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 24th day of October 2018.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF