Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility v. New Grace Rehabilitation Center, PLLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and Directing Plaintiff to Meet and Confer with Third-Parties. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE PLACEMENT
FACILITY,

4:17-cv-11007
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

Plaintiff,
v.
NEW GRACE
REHABILITATION CENTER,
PLLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER STRIKING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
COMPEL AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO MEET AND
CONFER WITH THIRDPARTIES

The Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (the
“MAIPF”) sued New Grace Spinal Rehabilitation Center, PLLC (“New
Grace”), Prodigy Spinal Rehabilitation, PLLC (“Prodigy”), Van Dyke
Spinal Rehabilitation Center, PLLC (“Van Dyke”), Summer Rose
Fakhouri, D.C., Michael Steven Meeron, D.C., and Anthony Eugene
Pulice, D.C. for allegedly violating the Michigan No-Fault Act, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 500.3101 et seq. (2017). Specifically, MAIPF claims the
Defendants participated in a racketeering enterprise intended to
fraudulently generate bills for unnecessary medical services provided to
individuals whose no-fault claims the MAIPF was adjusting under the
Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3171 (2012).

Presently before the Court are three motions to compel filed by
Plaintiff against several non-parties to this suit—a medical billing
company, and several healthcare providers. Through these discovery
motions, Plaintiff seeks an order: (1) compelling McLaren Oakwood, a
healthcare provider, to provide a record certification accompanying its
response to Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum (ECF No. 47); (2) compelling
Accurate Medical Billing to produce certain documents in advance of the
company’s deposition, and to designate a corporate representative to
appear for deposition in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 48); and (3) compelling healthcare
providers Ascension/St. John Hospitals, Beaumont Hospitals, DMC
Hospitals, and Henry Ford Hospitals to produce information pertaining
to certain patients (ECF No. 49). Additionally, Plaintiff seeks sanctions
against McLaren Oakwood and Accurate Medical Billing, and asks the
Court to hold the other non-party healthcare providers in contempt.
The Court’s Practice Guidelines instruct parties that they are
“REQUIRED to contact Court prior to filing any discovery motions” and
further provide that “[d]iscovery motions filed without leave of Court will
be stricken.” Though this Court previously granted Plaintiff permission
to file a discovery motion after leave had been sought, no leave was
sought in the case of these motions, and the Court’s prior permission was
not a blanket approval to file discovery motions at will. Pursuant to this
Court’s Practice Guidelines, these discovery motions will therefore be
2

STRICKEN. The Court is not satisfied that Plaintiff has undertaken
diligent, good-faith efforts to “narrow the areas of disagreement” with the
non-parties before filing the instant motions to compel discovery, as is
required by Local Rule 37.1. To encourage an amicable resolution of these
discovery disagreements, and avoid unnecessary litigation, the Court
hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to meet and confer with each third-party from
whom it is seeking discovery at least three times, by phone or in person,
and attempt to work out the production of these materials and
information.
It is further ORDERED that, within 14 days of the date of this
Order, Plaintiff will provide the Court with a detailed status report
describing the efforts it has made to resolve these discovery issues
without the Court’s intervention, as well as the results of such efforts and
a summary of any reasons, if given, why the third-parties refused to
provide the documents and information sought by Plaintiff.
If after engaging in the course of action described above, Plaintiff is
unable to reach an accommodation with the third-parties that results in
an adequate production of appropriately sought records, the Court upon
reviewing the status report will consider whether to grant Plaintiff leave
to re-file the stricken motions and, if appropriate, will compel the
production of any relevant evidence. A subpoena is an order of the Court,
which will be enforced if necessary, on pain of contempt. This Court

3

would prefer to allow the parties to work it out.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2019

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on
June 17, 2019, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to
all parties.
s/Amanda Chubb
Case Manager

4