*1 This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:

I. BACKGROUND.

On April 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint against Defendant alleging that Defendant monopolized and restrained trade of acute care hospitals in Brevard County or Southern Brevard County. Doc. No. 13 at ¶ 3. On June 24, 2021 Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Provide Compliant Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Disclosures (the “Motion”). Doc. No. 31. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs: (1) failed to “list names and subjects of information likely held by broad categories of “unknown” doctors, witnesses affiliated with health plans and Adventist, and persons “disclose[d]” in the record of the 2013 Omni Case;” and (2) “did not provide computation of each category of damages he or she claims and the evidentiary material on which each computation is based.” Id. at ¶ 2. Attached to the Motion are Plaintiffs’ June 16, 2021 Initial Disclosure, their June 20, 2021 Supplemental Disclosure and June 20 – 23 email exchanges between counsel wherein they addressed Defendant's contention that the aforementioned disclosures are deficient.

On June 29, 2021, Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Compel Initial Disclosure was filed (the “Response”). Doc. No. 32. In the Response, Plaintiffs assert that they have disclosed twenty-five known natural and corporate persons likely to have knowledge of Defendant's exclusionary and anticompetitive acts as well as categories of unknown persons with knowledge of the same. Id. As to the class action damages claim, Plaintiffs maintain they cannot quantify those damages until they receive documents from Defendant. As to the named Plaintiffs’ damages claims, they maintain that information was provided to Defendant in a recent meet and confer conference about the Motion. Id. at 7 – 9.

II. ANALYSIS.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A) requires parties to provide each other:

First, Defendant alleges Plaintiffs failed to provide names and subjects for certain “unknown to Plaintiff's knowledge” witnesses disclosed in the record of Omni Healthcare Inc. v. Health First, Case No. 6:13-cv-1509-RBD-DAB. Plaintiffs’ Response maintains many witnesses and their knowledge are set forth in their First Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) and they cite paragraphs wherein witnesses are identified. However, Plaintiffs’ disclosures were provided after the filing of the Complaint and made reference to witnesses identified from the record in the Omni case. Doc. No. 32-1 at 3. There is some overlap between counsel for the plaintiffs in both cases. The disclosures in this case indicate that the names of the unknown witnesses are contained in, among other things, various motions filed with this Court that are public record. Id. Thus, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have not made a diligent effort to disclose the individuals involved in the Omni case who are likely to have discoverable information and the subjects they have knowledge about. Accordingly, that portion of the Motion will be granted.

Next, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed to provide a computation of each category of damages they claim and failed to provide the evidentiary material the computation is based on. Doc. No. 31 at ¶ 2.

Plaintiffs disclosed that the individual plaintiffs and those similarly situated in the proposed class claim treble damages under Section Four of the Clayton Act and Florida Antitrust Act. Doc. No. 33 at 6. Plaintiffs also explained that if the proposed class is certified, then their precise calculation of the class's damages depends on documents they had requested from Defendant, but have not received. Doc. No. 31-3 at 3. Plaintiffs further iterated that their experts will use regression analysis to contrast Defendant's revenues for the provision of acute care, as detailed in the requested documents, with the benchmarking data from pricing billed by hospitals providing acute care in competitive markets. Id. As to the named Plaintiffs’ damages, Plaintiffs maintain that at the June 25, 2021 meet and confer they disclosed claim numbers for treatment as well as the amounts of monopoly based pricing that was billed, confidentiality claims made by the named Plaintiffs during the damage period to their health plan for their treatments, as well as the dollar amounts of the billed monopoly pricing. Doc. No. 33 at 7. The named Plaintiffs disclosed that these individual damage claims (associated with their co-insurance amounts) will be calculated in the same way as the damages for members of the proposed class. Id. at 7-8. Because Plaintiffs state that the information was disclosed at a meet and confer, but there is no indication that they provided a supplemental disclosure containing the information, the named Plaintiffs will be ordered to provide a supplemental disclosure regarding their individual damages.

In regard to the class damages, Plaintiffs have provided an outline of how they generally intend to quantify damages and the facts they need to do so. At this stage in the proceedings, that is enough. See Luna v. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Se.), Inc., No. CIVA 106-CV-2000-JEC, 2007 WL 1500269, at *4 (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2007) (holding Rule 26 does not require disclosure of class damages prior to certification of class action because class had not been certified and only named plaintiffs need provide damages disclosure).

III. CONCLUSION.

*3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on October 15, 2021.