Government Employees Insurance Company et al v. Analgesic Healthcare, Inc. et al
Filing
121
ORDER denying 110 motion to quash subpoena duces tecum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 7/16/2018. (DMP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:17-cv-1130-T-27AAS
ANALGESIC HEALTHCARE, INC.,
and ROY EDGERTON,
Defendants,
______________________________________/
ORDER
Analgesic Healthcare and Roy Edgerton move to quash a subpoena duces
tecum GEICO served on The Bank of Tampa. (Doc. 110). GEICO1 objects. (117).
GEICO subpoenaed documents relevant to its claims against the defendants.
Therefore, Analgesic and Mr. Edgerton’s motion to quash is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
GEICO submitted a second amended complaint against Analgesic Healthcare
and Mr. Edgerton in which GEICO asserts causes of action under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, and the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962. (Doc. 107). GEICO also alleges common law fraud, unjust enrichment,
The plaintiffs are GEICO and multiple GEICO subsidiaries. (Doc. 107, p. 1). The
court refers to the plaintiffs collectively as “GEICO.”
1
1
and violations of Florida, New Jersey, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania
law. (Doc. 107). GEICO essentially claims the defendants fraudulently submitted
hundreds of charges to GEICO on behalf of patients, insured by GEICO, who received
treatment for injuries sustained from auto accidents.
(Doc. 107).
Analgesic
Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton deny GEICO’s claims. (Doc. 114).
GEICO served a subpoena duces tecum on The Bank of Tampa. (Doc. 117-1).
In it, GEICO requested The Bank of Tampa produce all documents related to accounts
maintained by Analgesic Healthcare, including:
copies of all deposit and/or withdrawal slips, canceled checks,
transaction statements, electronic fund transfers, wire transfers,
account ledgers, account formation and governance documents,
corporate resolutions, signature cards, powers of attorney and all
correspondence related to the accounts.
(Id.). GEICO requests documents from January 1, 2010 to present. (Id.).
Analgesic Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton moved to quash GEICO’s subpoena
duces tecum served on The Bank of Tampa. (Doc. 110). Analgesic Healthcare and
Mr. Edgerton claim GEICO’s subpoena requests privileged information not subject to
exception nor waiver. (Id. at 1). Analgesic Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton also claim
GEICO’s subpoena requests confidential business records and proprietary
information—information in which they assert a privacy right and a real interest.
(Id. at 2–5). Additionally, the defendants argue the requested bank records are
irrelevant to GEICO’s claims. (Id. at 4). Analgesic Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton also
object to the temporal scope of GEICO’s subpoena (all documents from January 1,
2
2010, to present). (Doc 110, p. 4).
GEICO claims its subpoena requests documents for the period in which events
that led to its claims took place. (Doc. 117, p. 1). GEICO argues the defendants have
no standing to object to the subpoena. (Id. at 5–6). GEICO also argues the requested
documents are relevant to its claims and not privileged or confidential. (Id. at 6–17).
According to GEICO, its subpoena is not overbroad and a confidentiality order would
alleviate the defendants’ concerns about confidential business or proprietary
information. (Id. at 18–19).
II.
ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), a party may obtain discovery
about any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is meant to
assist parties in ascertaining facts that bear on issues in the case. ACLU of Fla., Inc.
v. City of Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 permits discovery from non-parties by
subpoena and requires the court to quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified
in Rule 45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). A party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena served on a
third party unless the party has a personal right or privilege with respect to the
materials subpoenaed. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D.
426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (citations omitted) (holding that a party’s standing to
challenge a subpoena to a non-party is “somewhat broader” than only circumstances
where the material sought is privileged because it also encompasses circumstances
in which the party has a personal right with respect to the materials subpoenaed).
Here, the defendants argue that they have standing because they have a
“privacy right” or a “real interest” in their bank account records. (Doc. 110, p. 2–3).
GEICO challenges the standing. The court need not decide whether the defendants’
privacy interest in their bank records rise to the level of a “privacy right” or a “real
interest” sufficient to confer standing under Rule 45 because they clearly have
standing under Rule 26 to seek a protective order. Belnavis v. Edwards Masonry,
Inc., No. 8:13-CV-2580-T-24MAP, 2014 WL 12621586, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2014)
(passing on issue of Rule 45 standing and instead construing motion to quash as a
motion to seek a protective order under Rule 26).
The materials GEICO requested from The Bank of Tampa are indeed relevant
and proportional to its claims against the defendants.
In its second amended
complaint, GEICO claims the defendants took part in a scheme, which began in 2010
and included illegal kickback payments, to submit fraudulent claims to GEICO on
behalf of patients involved in auto accidents. (Doc. 107, pp. 1–3). GEICO claims Mr.
4
Edgerton owned and controlled Analgesic Healthcare and used it to submit
fraudulent claims to GEICO. (Doc. 107, p. 2). Analgesic Healthcare’s bank records
GEICO subpoenaed from The Bank of Tampa are relevant to GEICO’s claims
concerning alleged illegal kickback payments and Mr. Edgerton’s alleged ownership
and control of Analgesic Healthcare. Because the subpoenaed bank records are
relevant and proportional to issues in this case, Analgesic Healthcare and Mr.
Edgerton’s motion is denied.
However, when a subpoena duces tecum requests financial records that are
confidential and proprietary in nature, the parties must keep that material
confidential during the discovery process. Inglis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:14CV-677-FtM-29CM, 2016 WL 2854204, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2016) (citation
omitted); see also Giambrone v. Kearney & Co., P.C., No. 8:16-CV-2083-T-30AAS,
2017 WL 2538705, at*2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2017) (requiring parties to confer in good
faith to reach an agreement about protecting a party’s subpoenaed employment
records). Therefore, the parties here must enter into a confidentiality agreement to
keep Analgesic Healthcare’s bank records confidential during the discovery phase of
this litigation. Analgesic Healthcare’s bank records from The Bank of Tampa must
be produced consistent with that confidentiality agreement.
III.
CONCLUSION
Analgesic Healthcare’s subpoenaed bank records from The Bank of Tampa are
relevant and proportional to GEICO’s claims against Analgesic Healthcare and Mr.
5
Edgerton. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Analgesic Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton’s
motion (Doc. 110) is DENIED. The subpoenaed documents from The Bank of Tampa
must be produced consistent with a confidentiality agreement reached by the parties.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 16th day of July, 2018.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?