MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 110

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiffs' Motion styled as Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order 103 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 19 December, 2018 02:02:12 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC,
a Delaware entity;
MSP RECOVERY, LLC,
a Florida entity;
MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC,
a Florida entity; and
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE FARM MUTUAL
)
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, an Illinois Company, )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 17-cv-1537

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion styled as
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order
(d/e 103) (Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of Medicare Advantage
Organizations and related entities (collectively Medicare Advantage
Organization Creditors) to recover from Defendant State Farm Automobile
Page 1 of 4

Insurance Company (State Farm) payments made by Medicare Advantage
Organization Creditors for covered medical expenses arising from
automobile accidents in which the medical expenses were also covered by
State Farm automobile insurance policies. Second Amended Complaint
(d/e 63); see Opinion and Order entered July 13, 2018 (d/e 86) for a more
detailed discussion of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
The parties are engaged in fact discovery on the class certification
issue. See Minute Entry entered August 31, 2018 (d/e 91) (adopting State
Farm’s proposed discovery schedule); Discovery Plan (d/e 90), at 3 (State
Farm proposed discovery schedule. State Farm has issued subpoenas
(Subpoenas) to two individuals, O.D. and C.S., alleged in the Second
Amended Complaint to be exemplars of covered individuals for whom
Medicare Advantage Organization Creditors paid bills that are the
responsibility of State Farm under automobile insurance policies. Second
Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 12-36. State Farm issued the Subpoenas to O.D.
and C.S. as well as various health providers of O.D. and C.S. The
Subpoenas seek depositions of O.D. and C.S. and medical records for two
years for both O.D. and C.S. The Plaintiffs move to quash and ask for a
protective order to prevent the discovery.

Page 2 of 4

Motion to Quash
State Farm argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to move to quash the
Subpoenas. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs lack standing to move to quash
the subpoenas directed at third parties unless the subpoenas seek
information that implicates disclosure of information subject to the Plaintiffs’
claims of privilege or privacy interests. Piercy v. Wilhelmi, 2016 WL
3034149, at *2 (C.D. Ill. May 27, 2016); Jump v. Montgomery Cty., 2015
WL 4530522, at *1 (C.D. Ill. July 27, 2015). The Subpoenas here seek
information related to the medical care of unrelated third parties O.D. and
C.S. The Subpoenas do not request information subject to a claim of
privilege by the Plaintiffs or a privacy interest of the Plaintiffs.1 The
Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this motion. The Motion to Quash is denied.
Motion for Protective Order
Plaintiffs are also not entitled to a protective order. In order to seek a
protective order, the Plaintiffs must certify that they have “in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to
resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Plaintiffs

1
Plaintiff’s previous motion to quash (d/e 95) involved subpoenas directed at entities that had interests in
the Plaintiffs’ claims in this proceeding. The Court found a sufficient connection to give Plaintiff standing.
In this case, O.D. and C.S. have no interest in any Plaintiff and no interest in Plaintiffs’ claims. O.D. and
C.S. had medical bills that have already been paid. Whether State Farm reimburses a Medicare
Advantage Organization Creditor for payment of those bills does not affect O.D. or C.S.

Page 3 of 4

fail to make this required certification. Indeed, Plaintiffs fail to indicate that
they made any effort to resolve this matter with State Farm before filing this
Motion. See Motion; Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash and for
Protective Order (d/e 104). The request for a protective order is denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion styled as
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order
(d/e 103) is DENIED.
ENTER: December 19, 2018
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 4 of 4