State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Universal Rehab Services, Inc. et al

Filing 191

ORDER Deeming RESOLVED in part and GRANTING in part Plaintiff's 159 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 2:15-cv-10993
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

UNIVERSAL REHAB SERVICES, INC.,
PHYSIOFLEX, P.L.L.C.,
SUMMIT MEDICAL GROUP, P.L.L.C.,
DAVID JANKOWSKI, D.O., and
AHMAD T. ABULABON, P.T.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DEEMING RESOLVED IN PART and GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF STATE FARM’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE SUMMIT
DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS (DE 159)
Judge Roberts has referred this case to me to conduct all non-dispositive
pretrial proceedings. (DE 165.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff State
Farm’s January 19, 2017 motion to compel Defendant Summit Medical Group,
P.L.L.C. and Defendant David Jankowski, D.O. (“the Summit Defendants”) to
produce responsive documents. (DE 159.) As set forth in State Farm’s argument,
the requests at issue concern (a) patient files related to the seven patients identified
in the complaint; (b) patient files for Summit and non-party Summit Physicians
Group (SPG) patients who received physical therapy at Defendant Universal Rehab

Services and Defendant PhysioFlex (“the PT clinics”); and (c) electronically stored
information (ESI) pursuant to agreed-upon search terms. (DE 159 at 25-31.)
The Summit Defendants have filed a response, arguing that (a) information
regarding non-State Farm insured patients is not relevant to this case and (b) they
have produced all patient files in their possession. (DE 169 at 22-23.) In reply,
Plaintiff State Farm asserts that the Summit Defendants must produce (a) “ESI
according to the agreed-upon search terms,” and (b) “files for non-[State Farm]
insureds [who] also received PT at Universal and/or PhysioFlex[.]” (DE 170 at
6-11.)
A hearing was noticed for February 27, 2017, on which date counsel for the
parties appeared in my courtroom. (DE 174.)1 On the same date, the parties filed a
joint statement of resolved and unresolved issues, indicating that the issue
concerning the records of patients identified in the complaint has been resolved.
(DE 184.) Therefore, the Court need only address the other two issues.
Having considered the motion papers and oral argument, and for the reasons
stated from the bench, which are incorporated by this reference as though fully
1

Attorneys Kathy P. Josephson (Chicago, Illinois) and David D. O’Brien appeared
on Plaintiff’s behalf; Gary R. Blumberg and Peter W. Joelson appeared on behalf of
the Summit Defendants; Gerard V. Mantese appeared on behalf of the Universal
Defendants; and Richard G. Finch appeared on behalf of Pacific Marketing, Inc. and
Garden State Media, Inc.
2

restated herein, State Farm’s motion to compel (DE 159) is GRANTED as follows:


As to responsive ESI:


Utilizing a date range of January 1, 2009 to present,
Defendant Summit Medical Group and Defendant
Jankowski shall search all documents and emails stored on all
computers, hard drives, smartphones, laptops, and personal
electronic devices in the Defendants’ possession, custody or
control using the following search terms, and produce the
responsive documents and emails to Plaintiff State Farm (see DE
159-25 at 2):






Search terms as set forth in motion Exhibit 24 (DE 159-25
at 3-9)
An additional search term of Ybana W/3 of Agrelo
E-mail addresses [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail] and
[e-mail].

As to patient files for non-State Farm insureds who were also
treated by Universal Rehab Services and PhysioFlex:


The requested information is relevant and proportional to
the needs of the case, in light of the various RICO counts
within the amended complaint (DE 107), the amount in
controversy, the importance to the needs of the case, the
respective burdens on the parties, the parties’ relative
access to the information, and the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). State Farm is entitled to discovery related to all
victims of the alleged racketeering scheme and regarding
allegedly fraudulent claims made to insurers other than
Plaintiff State Farm, because such information would tend
to support the finding of a pattern of mail fraud and / or
identify the number of victims.



In order to reduce the burden of fulfilling this request, and
3

as stipulated on the record, the following procedure shall
be followed:


On or before March 20, 2017, Defendants
Universal Rehab Services, PhysioFlex and
Abulabon (“the Universal Defendants”) shall
provide Plaintiff State Farm and the Summit
Defendants with a list / report of Summit Medical
Group patients treated at Universal Rehab and
PhysioFlex who were prescribed physical therapy
by Defendant Jankowski (whether at Defendant
Summit Medical Group or SPG)2 or by other
doctors who worked at Defendant Summit Medical
Group and identify, to the extent possible, which
doctor it was that prescribed the physical therapy.



Within 3 weeks of their receipt of the list, the
Summit Defendants shall search their files and
provide Plaintiff State Farm with their patient files
for non-State Farm insureds who were also treated
by Universal Rehab Services and PhysioFlex,
subject to any confidential designation necessary to
protect the patients’ personal or medical
information.

Should any of the parties require more time in complying with this timeframe,
the attorneys may contact my chambers to request a teleconference, but only
after conferring in an attempt to resolve the issue on their own,.
2

While State Farm’s motion’s prayer for relief is limited to the Summit Defendants,
it is clear that the first set of document requests to Summit and the first set of
document requests to Jankowski are subjects of the instant motion to compel. (DE
159 at 9, 32; see also DE 159 at 30). Those discovery requests contain definitions
of “you” and Requests for Production No. 2 which fairly encompass Dr.
Jankowski’s work at non-party SPG. (DE 159-2 at 2, 6 and DE 159-3 at 2, 6).
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2017

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on March 3, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

5