Innova Hosp. San Antonio LP v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc.
Innova Hosp. San Antonio LP v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc.
2014 WL 12980042 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
September 26, 2014
O'Connor, Reed, United States District Judge
Summary
Plaintiffs responded to Defendant's requests for production and interrogatories by listing dozens of Bates number ranges, which contained patient files. The Court found that simply producing those files in response to the discovery requests was insufficient to directly respond to HCSC's questions, and ordered Plaintiffs to provide complete responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
INNOVA HOSPITAL SAN ANTONIO LP and Victory Medical Center Houston, L.P., Plaintiffs,
v.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF GEORGIA, INC. et al., Defendants
v.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF GEORGIA, INC. et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-1607-O
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Signed September 26, 2014
Counsel
Lawrence J. Friedman, Carter Boisvert, Ernest W. Leonard, Friedman & Feiger LLP, Dallas, TX, Anna Olin Richardson, Rogge Dunne Group, Dallas, TX, Laura Reilly O'Hara, Clark Hill PLC, Dallas, TX, Matthew Steven Muckleroy, Muckleroy, PLLC, Dallas, TX, Charles Scott Nichols, Nichols Brar Weitzner & Thomas LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.Andrew F. MacRae, Lavatino Pace LLP, Austin, TX, Brian P. Kavanaugh, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, Devon M. Largio, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey S. Bramson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, Dennis J. Keithly, Yung Keithly LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant Health Care Service Corporation.
Patrick Peter de Gravelles, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, Washington, DC, Brian Keith Norman, Shamoun & Norman LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant Carefirst of Maryland Inc.
John L. Thompson, Guerrini & Thompson PC, Dallas, TX, Covert J. Geary, Jones Walker LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants Highmark Inc., Premera Blue Cross, Wellmark Inc.
John L. Thompson, Guerrini & Thompson PC, Dallas, TX, Elaine T. Lenahan, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, Dallas, TX, Amy Kathleen Anderson, Jones Walker LLP, Houston, TX, Covert J. Geary, Michael Christopher Drew, Jones Walker LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant BCBSM Inc.
Mary L. O'Connor, Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP, Dallas, TX, Elaine T. Lenahan, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, Dallas, TX, Rebecca O'Reilly, Pro Hac Vice, Bodman PLC, Detroit, MI, for Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan.
Amy M. Stewart, Stewart Law Group PLLC, Dallas, TX, Kevin B. Wiggins, White & Wiggins LLP, Dallas, TX, Camille L. Stearns Miller, Law Office of Camille Stearns Miller, Rockwall, TX, for Defendant BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee Inc.
O'Connor, Reed, United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 Before the Court are Defendant Health Care Service Corporation's (“HCSC” or “Defendant”) Motion to Compel and Appendix in Support (ECF Nos. 186-87), filed August 15, 2014; Plaintiffs’ Response and Appendix in Support (ECF Nos. 208-09), filed August 26, 2014; and Defendant HCSC's Reply and Appendix in Support (ECF Nos. 211-12), filed August 29, 2014.
This case arises out of a dispute over reimbursement for health care services provided to patients who were insured by insurance companies that offer Blue Cross Blue Shield products and services. After a series of dismissals, the remaining claims include (1) Failure to Provide Information Upon Request-Count IV; and (2) Negligent Misrepresentation-Count VI. See 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 139; Order, July 21, 2014, ECF No. 181. HCSC is the only remaining defendant. Defendant now moves this Court to compel Plaintiffs to (1) provide complete responses to Interrogatories 3-6 and 8 in HCSC's First Set of Interrogatories; (2) produce documents in response to Requests for Production Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, and 13 in HCSC's First Set of Requests for Production; (3) provide disclosures pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (4) produce documents Plaintiffs agreed to produce in response to HCSC's requests in a form compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. HCSC's Mot. Compel 1, ECF No. 186. HCSC also seeks an order from this Court that would (1) bar Plaintiffs from presenting any evidence of damages not contained in Plaintiffs’ August 2012 disclosures; (2) grant HCSC an extension of time to complete additional, follow-up discovery, extend the remaining deadlines for an additional 60 days; and (3) award HCSC fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. Id. at 6-7. Per the Court's Amended Scheduling Order, the discovery deadline was September 15, 2014, so Defendant's Motion to Compel is timely. See Order, May 7, 2014, ECF No. 162.
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). All of Defendant's requests for production of documents and interrogatory requests appear to be relevant to defending against Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. See HCSC's App. Supp. Mot. Compel 51-71, ECF No. 187. In fact, Defendant's discovery requests seek the basis for Plaintiffs’ suit.
Plaintiff Victory Medical Center Houston LP (“Victory”) objected to every one of Defendant's requests for production as being overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome but indicated that it would produce responses on an encrypted CD.[1] See HCSC's App. Supp. Mot. Compel 87-91, ECF No. 187. Plaintiff Victory also objected to every interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome. Id. at 95-100. In its answers to Defendant's interrogatories, Plaintiff Victory indicated that it needed to “review and digest” Defendant's recent production before it could supplement its answers. Id. When Plaintiffs’ supplemented their responses, they responded to Defendant's requests for production and interrogatories by listing dozens of Bates number ranges. See, e.g., Pls.’ App. Supp. Resp. Mot. Compel 61-80, 87-102, ECF No. 209-7; HCSC's App. Supp. Reply Mot. Compel 1-42, ECF No. 212. Defendant contends that these supplemental responses are nonresponsive. HCSC's Reply Mot. Compel 3-6, ECF No. 211.
*2 The burden to justify a party's objections to the production of discovery is on the party resisting discovery. Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2004); Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 467, 470 (N.D. Tex. 2005). In order to satisfy this burden, the objecting party must make a specific, detailed showing of how a request is burdensome; “[a] mere statement that a request is ‘overly broad and unduly burdensome’ is not adequate to voice a successful objection.” SEC v. Brady, 238 F.R.D. 429, 437 (N.D. Tex. 2006).
Plaintiffs have objected to providing further answers to Defendant's discovery requests because they believe the requests are overly broad and burdensome and that responding by identifying patient files by Bates number ranges is a sufficient response. Although each Bates number range provided by Plaintiffs contains a patient file, after a review of this evidence, the Court concludes simply producing those files in response to the discovery requests does not provide any sort of substance to answer Defendant's questions and alone are insufficient to directly respond to HCSC's questions. Based on this information, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden and are required to fully respond to these discovery requests.
In addition, HCSC's Motion to Compel seeks to compel Plaintiffs to supplement their Rule 26(a) damages disclosures. HCSC's Br. Supp. Mot. Compel 13-14, ECF No. 186. The pleadings indicate that Plaintiffs have supplemented their August 2012 disclosures. Pls.’ Resp. Mot. Compel 7, ECF No. 208; HCSC's Reply Mot. Compel 2 n.2, ECF No. 211. In reply, Defendant contends that it is not satisfied with Plaintiffs’ supplemental disclosures. However, Defendant does not provide the Court with evidence of how these supplemental disclosures are insufficient. Id. Accordingly, the Court has insufficient information to rule on this issue. As it stands, Rule 26 will govern Plaintiffs August 2014 disclosures.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 186) should be and is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs must promptly serve all responsive documents and provide interrogatory answers that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion is DENIED as to Defendant's motion related to disclosures, the extension of deadlines, and the award of fees and costs.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall produce all responsive documents and provide interrogatory answers that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than October 6, 2014.
SO ORDERED on this 26th day of September, 2014.
Footnotes
In response to HCSC's Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs argue that it is HCSC that has not been responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. See generally Pls.’ Resp. Mot. Compel, ECF No. 208. While the Court does not excuse this sort of conduct in discovery, Plaintiffs did not file their own timely motion to compel discovery from Defendant. Thus, the Court cannot consider HCSC's compliance or alleged noncompliance in discovery. See Acushnet Co. v. Birdie Golf Ball Co., Inc., 116 F.R.D. 42, 43 (S.D. Fla. 1996).