Day v. Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc.

Filing 183

ORDER: Plaintiff David Day's Objection to the Magistrate's September 4, 2020, Discovery Order (Doc. # 178) is overruled. The Magistrate's Discovery Order (Doc. # 176) is affirmed. Day's Motion to Extend Deadlines in the Second Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 178) is denied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/17/2020. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID DAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:19-cv-1522-T-33TGW

SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL,
INC. d/b/a DOCTORS HOSPITAL
OF SARASOTA,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Plaintiff David Day’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Thomas G.
Wilson’s Discovery Order (Doc. # 178), filed on September 15,
2020. In the order at issue, entered on September 4, 2020,
the Magistrate granted Defendant Sarasota Doctors Hospital,
Inc’s Motion for Reconsideration on Motion to Compel. (Doc.
# 176). On September 25, 2020, Doctors Hospital filed a
response. (Doc. # 181). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court overrules the Objection.
I.

Background
Both the Court and the parties are familiar with the

facts underlying this case. Accordingly, the Court need not
reiterate them here.
Day

initially

filed

this
1

action

in

state

court

on

November 30, 2017. (Doc. # 1). On May 23, 2019, Day filed a
motion to amend his complaint in state court, which was
granted

on

June

20,

2019.

(Id.).

Notably,

the

amended

complaint also included a putative class action. (Doc. # 1-1
at 13-14). On June 24, 2018, Doctors Hospital removed the
case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). (Doc. # 1).
On

September

30,

2019,

Day

filed

a

second

amended

complaint. (Doc. # 46). On March 4, 2020, Day moved the Court
to compel Doctors Hospital to produce a number of contracts
between the Hospital and insurance carriers. (Doc. # 94 at
18). The Magistrate denied the motion without prejudice on
March 9, 2020. (Doc. # 95). Day then filed an amended motion
to compel production of those contracts (Doc. # 96), which
the Magistrate granted in part on July 10, 2020. (Doc. # 149).
In that order, the Magistrate directed Doctors Hospital
to produce “any and all contracts or agreements between
[Doctors Hospital], any entity and any insurance carrier
which

mandate

and/or

delineate

the

amount

that

[Doctors

Hospital] or any entity related to [Doctors Hospital] can
charge insurers for specific medical services or the amount
of fees that [Doctors Hospital] will accept from such insurers
for specific medical services from January 1, 2015, to date.”
2

(Doc. # 96 at 18; Doc. # 149). This amounted to over 1,000
contracts, which Doctors Hospital alleges are “proprietary,
confidential, intrusive,” and “commercially sensitive.” (Doc.
# 179 at 2-4).
Following significant discovery and a number of other
motions to compel, Day filed a motion to certify class on
June 1, 2020 (Doc. # 119), which the Court denied on July 23,
2020. (Doc. # 155). On July 30, 2020, Doctors Hospital filed
a motion for reconsideration of the July 10, 2020, order
compelling it to produce its insurance-carrier contracts
because the denial of class certification “resulted in a
significant change in the posture of [the] case.” (Doc. # 157
at

2).

On

September

4,

2020,

following

a

hearing,

the

Magistrate granted the motion for reconsideration and vacated
the Court’s prior order as to Day’s request for production of
the aforementioned insurance contracts. (Doc. # 176).
On September 15, 2020, Day filed an Objection to the
Magistrate’s order on the motion for reconsideration, arguing
that the Magistrate “erred as a matter of law by ruling that,
because this Court denied class certification, [Day] could no
longer

obtain

discovery

into

contracts

between

[Doctors

Hospital] and insurance carriers which delineate the amount
that

[Doctors

Hospital]

can

charge
3

and

the

amount

that

[Doctors

Hospital]

specific

medical

will

accept

services.”

from

(Doc.

#

such
178

at

insurers
5).

In

for
the

Objection, Day also requests that the Court extend the second
amended case management and scheduling order’s discovery and
other pretrial deadlines, and the trial date, by sixty days.
(Id.). Doctors Hospital has responded (Doc. # 181), and the
Objection is ripe for review.
II.

Legal Standard
When a party timely objects to a magistrate’s discovery

order, the district court must consider the objections and
“modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see
28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(A).

This

standard

is

“highly

deferential.” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425
F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005).
“[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there
is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 1351-52 (citation
omitted). An order “is contrary to the law when it fails to
apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of
procedure.” Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1339,
1347 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citation omitted). “A magistrate judge
4

is

afforded

broad

discretion

in

issuing

pretrial

orders

related to discovery and the objecting party must show the
magistrate

judge

Acquisitions

was

Corp.,

clearly
No.

wrong.”

Heller

8:17-cv-1715-T-02TGW,

v.

Logan

2018

WL

6075498, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2018) (citing United States
ex rel Ragghianti Founds. III, LLC v. Peter R. Brown Constr.,
No. 8:12-cv-942-T-33MAP, 2013 WL 5290108, at *5 (M.D. Fla.
Sept. 19, 2013)).
III. Analysis
Day argues that the Magistrate’s September 4, 2020,
discovery order was clearly erroneous and contrary to law
because the scope of discovery remains proportional to Day’s
needs in spite of the Court’s denial of class certification.
(Doc. # 178 at 5-6). Day explains that “[t]he requested
contracts go directly to one of the . . . considerations” of
whether the medical charges

at issue in this case

were

reasonable. (Id. at 6). Additionally, Day notes that the Court
previously held that “Day’s claims entail broad discovery
regardless of the scope of his proposed class.” (Id.).
However,

after

careful

review

of

the

Magistrate’s

September 4, 2020, order, and the record, the Court finds no
“clear

error.”

To

the

contrary,

the

Magistrate’s

order

complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
5

Procedure 26.
Under Rule 26, “[p]arties 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[.]” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b) provides a number of factors
that

courts

may

consider

in

determining

the

scope

of

discovery, including “the importance of the issues at stake
in

the

action,

relative

access

the

amount

to

in

relevant

controversy,

parties’

the

information,

the

parties’

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.
There

are

“three

major

grounds

justifying

reconsideration [of a court’s order]: (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; [and] (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A.,
153

F.R.D.

689,

694

(M.D.

Fla.

1994).

“A

motion

for

reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely address
issues litigated previously.” Kaplan v. Kaplan, No. 2:10-cv237-FtM-36SPC, 2011 WL 13141502, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14,
2011) (citation omitted).
Here, the Magistrate granted Doctors Hospital’s motion
6

for reconsideration and vacated in part the previous order
granting the motion to compel because the denial of class
certification significantly changed the posture of the case.
(Doc. # 176; Doc. # 179 at 8-11). Because of this change, the
Magistrate found that production of the insurance contracts
became overly burdensome. (Doc. # 179 at 8-11). Indeed,
significant information sought by Day was already publicly
available and the amount in controversy in the case decreased
dramatically

following

the

Court’s

denial

of

class

certification. (Id. at 5). Furthermore, Doctors Hospital had
already

produced

contracts

with

three

of

the

largest

insurers. (Doc. # 176, Doc. # 179 at 8-11).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s finding that, due
to the denial of class certification, requiring production of
over 1,000 contracts was not proportional to Day’s needs and
was

overly

burdensome

for

Doctors

Hospital.

Thus,

the

Magistrate’s September 4, 2020, order was neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. To the extent that Day also
seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of an extension
of the deadlines in the second amended case management and
scheduling order, that request is denied, as Day premised
this request on the Court’s sustaining the instant Objection.
(Doc. # 178 at 9-10).
7

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff David Day’s Objection to

the

Magistrate’s

September 4, 2020, Discovery Order (Doc. # 178) is
OVERRULED. The Magistrate’s Discovery Order (Doc. # 176)
is AFFIRMED.
(2)

Day’s Motion to Extend Deadlines in the Second Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 178) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this

17th day of October, 2020.

8