United Surgical Assistants, LLC v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Filing 107

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion to Compel the Production of Documents from Aetna Life Insurance Company; granting in part and denying in part 95 Motion to Compel Better Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 9/30/2015. (JR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED SURGICAL ASSISTANTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-211-T-30JSS

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and AETNA HEALTH, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of
Documents from Aetna Life Insurance Company (Dkt. 94) and Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Better Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Dkt. 95.) A hearing was held on
this matter on September 29, 2015.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, United Surgical Assistants, LLC (“USA”), filed a Third Amended Complaint
against Defendants, Aetna Life Insurance Company (“ALIC”) and Aetna Health, Inc. (collectively,
“Defendants”), on November 3, 2014, alleging claims against ALIC for breach of contract (Count
I), unjust enrichment/breach of implied contract (Count II), and a claim for benefits under ERISA
Section 502(a)(1) (Count VI). (Dkt. 75.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants improperly denied
Plaintiff’s valid claims for payment and refused to reimburse Plaintiff for surgical assistants’
services provided by Plaintiff in performing medical procedures that were covered under
Defendants’ health care insurance plans.

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment clarifying

Plaintiff’s rights to receive future benefits under Defendants’ ERISA plans and attorneys’ fees in
accordance with ERISA Section 502(g).

On July 13, 2015, Plaintiff served its Third Request for Production of Documents on ALIC
(Dkt. 94, Ex. A), to which ALIC responded. ALIC served its First Request for Production of
Documents, and Plaintiff served its responses on August 13, 2015. (Dkt. 95, Ex. A.) On July 14,
2015, ALIC served its Interrogatories. (Dkt. 95, Ex. B.) Plaintiff served its objections and answers
on August 26, 2015. (Dkt. 95, Ex. B.) Subsequently, the parties filed the two motions to compel
at issue.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
A party is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant discovery is defined broadly
as any information that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The term “relevant” in Rule 26 should encompass “any matter
that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or
may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S. Ct. 2380, 2389,
57 L. Ed. 2d 253 (1978). A party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37. The court has broad discretion to compel or deny discovery. Josendis v. Wall to
Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011).
ANALYSIS
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents from ALIC
The Court reviewed the parties’ pleadings and heard extensive argument at the hearing.
For the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request
for Production Number 1. The Court also grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request for
Production Number 2 and ALIC must produce all documents related to the denial of the claims at
issue in this case. ALIC’s document production is due November 2, 2015. In addition to the

-2-

production, ALIC must provide a privilege log by November 2, 2015, regarding any matter deemed
confidential.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Interrogatories and Requests
for Production1
The Court reviewed the parties’ pleadings and heard extensive argument at the hearing.
For the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel as to Request
for Production Number 1 to the extent that documents related to medical facilities or surgeons who
were involved in the procedures at issue in this case are to be produced. The Court grants
Defendant’s Motion to Compel as to Request for Production Numbers 6 and 14 to the extent that
documents that reference “recognized charges” are to be produced. The Court grants Defendant’s
Motion to Compel as to Request for Production Numbers 12 and 15 to the extent that documents
regarding authorizations and pre-certifications are to be produced. The Court grants Defendant’s
Motion to Compel as to Request for Production Number 13 to the extent that any written
procedures that Plaintiff has within its possession, custody, or control are to be produced. The
Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Compel as to Request for Production Number 11, as Plaintiff
has previously produced documents relevant to this request.
The Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,
10, and 11, as information responsive to these interrogatories has already been provided by
Plaintiff. The Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory Number 8 to the
extent that Plaintiff must provide contact information for any individuals with information
responsive to this interrogatory who have not already been identified.

1

Defendant’s Request for Production was misnumbered after Request Number 8. The Court’s Order reflects
consecutively numbered requests following Request Number 8.

-3-

Accordingly, upon consideration and for the reasons stated at the hearing, it is
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents from Aetna Life Insurance
Company (Dkt. 94) is GRANTED in part.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for
Production (Dkt. 95) is GRANTED in part.
3. On or before November 1, 2015, the parties must serve their amended discovery
responses and produce responsive documents, as well as a privilege log regarding
confidential information, in accordance with this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 30, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-4-