Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Filing
232
Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiffs' 225 Motion to Compel and Denying Defendant's 226 Motion to Strike Witness Disclosure. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
Case 1:16-cv-10317-TLL-PTM ECF No. 232, PageID.13900 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
OF MICHIGAN and
WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10317
v.
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
United States District Judge
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE WITNESS DISCLOSURE
This matter is before this Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Defendant’s Motion
to Strike Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosure. Plaintiffs’ Motion will be granted,
and Defendant’s Motion will be denied.
I.
In January 2016, Plaintiffs Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and its Welfare
Benefit Plan sued Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan under federal and state law,
alleging it failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties in administering the Plaintiffs’ health-insurance plans.
Four years ago, the Sixth Circuit reversed this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims based
on Defendant’s alleged failure to insist on “Medicare-like rates” for care that was both authorized
by Plaintiffs’ Contract Health Services1 program and provided to tribal members by
1
The Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2014 renamed the Contract Health Services program “the
Purchased/Referred Care program” (PRC). See Purchased/Referred Care (PRC), INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICE
(June
2016),
https://www.ihs.gov/newsroom/factsheets/purchasedreferredcare/
[https://perma.cc/NLK5-LH8U]. Yet throughout this litigation, all court level and the parties have
used the terms “CHS” and “Contract Health Services.” The same is true in this Order.
Case 1:16-cv-10317-TLL-PTM ECF No. 232, PageID.13901 Filed 11/14/22 Page 2 of 7
Medicare-participating hospitals. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Mich. v. BCBS of Mich., 200
F. Supp. 3d 697 (E.D. Mich. 2016), vacated in part on recons., No. 16-CV-10317, 2016 WL
6276911 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 27, 2016), rev’d in part, 748 F. App’x 12 (6th Cir. 2018), aff’g No. 16CV-10317, 2017 WL 3007074 (E.D. Mich. July 14, 2017).
On remand, this Court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluding that
Plaintiffs’ payments for qualified CHS care through the Blue Cross plans were not eligible for
Medicare-like rates. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Mich. v. BCBS of Mich., 477 F. Supp. 3d
598 (E.D. Mich. 2020). This Court interpreted the relevant federal regulations as limiting the
requirement of Medicare-like rates to care that was authorized by CHS, provided to tribal members
by Medicare-participating hospitals, and directly paid for with CHS funds. Id.
The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case again, this time based on its
interpretation of the applicable regulations. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Mich. v. BCBS of
Mich., 32 F.4th 548 (6th Cir. 2022), en banc reh’g denied, No. 21-1226, 2022 WL 2286404, at *1
(6th Cir. June 7, 2022).
The parties have since engaged in months of substantial discovery and have repeatedly
mentioned the possibility of settlement. See ECF Nos. 209–224. The instant motions are discovery
disputes: one to compel discovery and one to strike a witness disclosure.
II.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel discovery. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26(e) and 37, they seek an order directing Defendant to supplement its prior disclosures with “(1)
claims data production with the Health Insurance Claim Forms 1500s for the underlying healthcare
claims at issue,” (2) “the claims data fields identifying that the healthcare claims were
referred/authorized by the Tribe’s Contract Health Services Program,” and (3) “the missing
-2
Case 1:16-cv-10317-TLL-PTM ECF No. 232, PageID.13902 Filed 11/14/22 Page 3 of 7
invoices and reports” from “the invoices and reports Defendant issued to Plaintiff and previously
produced in this case.” ECF No. 225 at PageID.13314.
In contest, Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ motion (1) is untimely and (2) seeks irrelevant
information that (3) is not proportionate to the needs of the case. ECF No. 229 at PageID.13670.
“[I]t is well established that the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the
trial court.” Coleman v. Am. Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1096 (6th Cir. 1994). Generally, discovery
entails all nonprivileged matters that are “relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). This rule is “broadly read[] to encompass matters
that might bear on[] or might lead to matters that could bear on ‘any issue that is or may be in the
case.’” Knop v. Johnson, No. G84-651, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17974, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 23,
1988) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)). Simply put,
evidence is discoverable if there is even a remote possibility that it is or could become relevant.
First, Defendant’s timeliness argument is misplaced. Although true that discovery has
ended, this Court granted the parties’ stipulation to reopen discovery for limited purposes on
August 2, 2022. See ECF No. 222. In that Order, Defendant consented to provide Plaintiffs with,
among other things, (1) “the claims data relative to the Member Plan going back to July 2007,
consistent with the claims data produced by [Defendant] in the Grand Traverse Band litigation,”
(2) “the Tribal Members that participated in the Employee Plan,” and (3) “the claims data relative
to those individuals, consistent with the claims data produced by [Defendant] in the Grand
Traverse Band litigation.” Id. at PageID.13297. Obviously, this placed a duty on Defendant to
supplement those disclosures. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), (e)(1)(A). And to the extent that
it might not have, it will. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e)(1)(B) (requiring parties to “supplement or
correct” disclosures “as ordered by the court”).
-3
Case 1:16-cv-10317-TLL-PTM ECF No. 232, PageID.13903 Filed 11/14/22 Page 4 of 7
Second, the information that Plaintiffs seek is relevant. Granted, Plaintiffs’ motion sought
Health Insurance Claim Form 1500s for the underlying healthcare claims at issue. But Defendant
has since clarified that the forms that Plaintiffs intended to seek are “UB-04 Forms.” See ECF No.
229 at PageID.13681. Although Defendant adds that UB-04s are not relevant because “nothing on
Form UB-04 actually evidences ‘authorization,’” id., that is incorrect. If the Tribe referred or
authorized the claimed care, then the UB-04s would identify “the Tribe’s Nimkee Contract Health
Program” in Box 38 as the “Responsible Party,” in Box 50 with Defendant as the “Payer,” and in
Box 80 as the “authorized agent”—and the UB-40s2 have a designated blank for “Treatment
Authorization Codes.”3 ECF No. 231 at PageID.13855; see, e.g., ECF No. 231-5 at PageID.13876–
81. Although correlation does not equal causation, it is more likely than not that this consistent use
of the forms and explanation of what treatment if any was “authorized” demonstrates “the
healthcare claims [that] were referred/authorized by the Tribe’s Contract Health Services
Program,” which Defendant stipulated to provide to Plaintiffs. ECF No. 225 at PageID.13314.
And the documents sought are proportionate to the needs of the case. For one, producing
all the UB-04s for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe during the relevant time would be
proportionate because Defendant has already stipulated to disclose them, they are within
2
A UB-04 Form is “a universally accepted billing form for services rendered by [healthcare]
facilities.” Malibu Behav. Health Servs. Inc. v. Magellan Healthcare, Inc., No.
220CV1731ODWPVCX, 2021 WL 2457155, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2021). It is how the facility
bills the insurer. Yet, UB-40s are not the exclusive mechanism by which insurers may approve or
deny coverage. See Stanford Health Care v. USAble Mut. Ins., 548 F. Supp. 3d 909, 915 (N.D.
Cal. 2021).
3
The Treatment Authorization Codes are “[a] number or other indicator that designates that the
treatment covered by this bill has been authorized by the payer indicated in [Box] 50 on lines A,
B, and C.” UF-04 Instructions and Sample Claim Form, SECURITYHEALTHPLAN (Sept. 15, 2021),
https://www.securityhealth.org/providers/provider-manual/shared-content/claims-processingpolicies-and-procedures/ub-04-instructions-and-sample-claim-form?claims-processing-policiesand-procedures-group--direct-pay [].
-4
Case 1:16-cv-10317-TLL-PTM ECF No. 232, PageID.13904 Filed 11/14/22 Page 5 of 7
Defendant’s possession, and it would not be overly burdensome for Defendant to produce them,
which it has already done for numerous other documents specific to the people involved here.
Moreover, Plaintiffs offered to “avoid the production of gobs of documents (e.g.[,] the [UB-04]s)
by finding representative examples and stipulating that similar documents would exist as to all
relevant transactions,” or whatever “could save time and money by streamlining the discovery
process and trial.” ECF No. 231-3 at PageID.13871. And Defendant has advanced no argument
for why producing the UB-04s for be unduly burdensome.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel will be granted. Defendant will be directed
to produce all UB-04s related to this case and the invoices and reports that it agreed to produce.
III.
Defendant has filed a motion to strike a supplemental witness disclosure that Plaintiffs
provided on June 20, 2022. See generally ECF No. 226. Defendant argues the disclosure should
be stricken because (1) Plaintiffs did not seek leave to file it, (2) it surprises Defendant, (3)
responding to it would require significant expense, (4) it would disrupt the timeline for trial, and
(5) Plaintiffs have not justifiably explained the timeliness of the disclosure. Id. at PageID.13389.
Good cause is required to substitute an expert witness after discovery ends. Whiteside v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 11-10091, 2011 WL 5084981, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2011).
“Courts have looked to both Rule 16(b)(4) and Rule 37(c) when deciding whether to allow a party
to substitute an expert witness when the first expert becomes unavailable.” Gaines v. Cnty. of
Wayne, No. 20-11186, 2021 WL 5997980, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2021). To that end, the court
should consider the “moving party’s diligence,” “possible prejudice” to the nonmoving part, and
whether the moving party offered a “reasonable explanation.” Id. at *2; accord Howe v. City of
Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 747 (6th Cir. 2015).
-5
Case 1:16-cv-10317-TLL-PTM ECF No. 232, PageID.13905 Filed 11/14/22 Page 6 of 7
The only real issue is that Plaintiffs did not request leave to substitute their witnesses. In a
related case involving the same issues, the same counsel, and the same Defendant, the parties
stipulated to permit “an additional expert in light of the inability of Plaintiffs’ current expert to
analyze claims more than seven years old.” Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
v. BCBS of Mich., No. 5:14-CV-11349 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2021), ECF No. 144 at PageID.3514.
Two days later, those plaintiffs replaced their prior expert witness with the same two expert
witnesses at issue here. See ECF No. 228-8 at PageID.13647–48. In this way, Defendant’s
arguments about surprise, expense, and explanation fail. And Defendant’s trial-timeline argument
fails, as there is no trial scheduled and the parties have been working to settle the case.
Plaintiffs’ witness substitution is justified and harmless. Plaintiffs seemingly expected
Defendant to permit them to use the same firm to calculate damages in this case that Defendant
permitted another Native American Tribe to use in another case mere month ago. One of the
“principal concerns” in “the world of discovery . . . seems to be data management.” Zakary A.
Drabczyk, Note, Share with Caution: The Dangers Behind Sharing Orders, 65 WAYNE L. REV.
401, 402 (2020). So Defendant has unsurprisingly contested Plaintiffs’ request. However, as
explained above, there has been new discovery taking place, the parties are trying to settle, which
will require complex mathematical computations, and Plaintiffs’ current expert has cut ties with
the case after extreme delay due in part to appeals. If Plaintiffs have no expert to assist the parties
in analyzing the claims data, then that would severely impede the parties’ settlement efforts and
the merits of the case, as damages are obviously critical to Plaintiffs’ claims. In sum, Plaintiffs
have provided good cause to sub in a new expert witness.
For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Strike will be denied.
-6
Case 1:16-cv-10317-TLL-PTM ECF No. 232, PageID.13906 Filed 11/14/22 Page 7 of 7
IV.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, ECF No. 225, is
GRANTED.
Further, it is ORDERED that Defendant is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiffs with all
UB-04 Forms that relate to the claims at issue, as well as the missing invoices and reports that it
failed to provide, on or before November 28, 2022.
Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to substitute Lynda Myrick
and Dawn Cornelis in place of Natalyn Gardner.
Further, it is ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to complete expert discovery
with respect to Lynda Myrick and Dawn Cornelis on or before February 13, 2023.
Further, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 226, is DENIED
AS MOOT.
Dated: November 14, 2022
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
-7
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?