Multiplan, Inc. et al v. Holland et al

Filing 270

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 263 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on 2/16/2018. (BR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MULTIPLAN, INC. and PRIVATE
HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
v.

PLAINTIFFS/
COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
CAUSE NO. 1:14CV315-LG-RHW

STEVEN W. HOLLAND, doing
business as Physical Therapy
Clinic of Gulfport

DEFENDANT/
COUNTERCLAIMANT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
STEVEN W. HOLLAND’S MOTION IN LIMINE
BEFORE THE COURT is the [263] Motion in Limine filed by the
defendant/counterclaimant Steven W. Holland, doing business as Physical Therapy
Clinic of Gulfport. The plaintiffs/counter-defendants Multiplan, Inc. and Private
Healthcare Systems, Inc. have filed a response to the Motion. After reviewing the
submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds that Holland’s
Motion should be granted in part and denied in part as set forth below.
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit arose out of a dispute between a physical therapist, Steven W.
Holland, and two preferred provider organizations (PPOs), PHCS and Multiplan.
Holland alleges that the PPOs applied discounts to workers’ compensation claims to
which they were not entitled. Multiplan and PHCS allege that Holland and Kevin
Barrett, doing business as Quest Financial Recovery Services, harassed their clients
and interfered with their business relations.

DISCUSSION
In his Motion in Limine, Holland asks the Court to prohibit reference to
thirteen separate issues at the trial of this matter. Mulitplan and PHCS do not
oppose ten of those requests; thus, it is not necessary to discuss those issues, and
Holland’s Motion will be granted to that extent.
Multiplan and PHCS oppose Holland’s request to prohibit “[a]ny reference to
the time period or circumstances under which the [sic] Holland hired an attorney.”
(Mot. at 2, ECF No. 263). Multiplan and PHCS argue that they should be able to
address this issue at trial, as they argue that Holland waived his right to oppose the
PPO discounts by waiting to oppose them. The Court finds that the date on which
Holland hired an attorney and the circumstances concerning the hiring of an
attorney are irrelevant and could potentially concern matters that are privileged.
Multiplan and PHCS can assert their waiver or estoppel argument using the date
on which Holland first contested the discounts and/or filed his counterclaims, to the
extent permitted by law. Therefore, Holland’s Motion is granted to this extent.
Multiplan and PHCS also oppose Holland’s request to prohibit “[a]ny
reference to any matter that is not relevant to the case or will not be supported by
the evidence, asserting personal knowledge of the facts, or stating personal opinions
regarding the case or the credibility of the witnesses, all of which is contrary to
applicable law.” The Court finds that this request should be denied at this time, as
it is vague and it is impossible to determine what this request entails, aside from a
request that the Court require the parties to follow the law, the Federal Rules of

-2-

Evidence, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp.,
No. 2:07CV181-M-A, 2011 WL 2134578, at *4 (N.D. Miss. May 27, 2011) (“The
purpose of motions in limine is not to re-iterate matters which are set forth
elsewhere in the Rules of Civil Procedure or Rules of Evidence, but, rather, to
identify specific issues which are likely to arise at trial, and which, due to their
complexity or potentially prejudicial nature, are best addressed in the context of a
motion in limine.”) Holland will be permitted to make contemporaneous objections
at trial.
Multiplan and PHCS oppose Holland’s request to prohibit references to his
relationship with Kevin Barrett and/or Quest Financial Recovery Services and to
prohibit any attempt to hold Holland liable for the actions of Barrett and/or Quest.
The Court does not have sufficient information at this time to determine whether
Holland is responsible for the actions of Barrett and/or Quest. If Holland felt that
he was not responsible for their conduct, he should have filed a timely motion for
summary judgment. Since he did not do so, this matter will be resolved at trial.
Therefore, this request is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [263] Motion
in Limine filed by the defendant/counterclaimant Steven W. Holland is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth herein.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 16th day of February, 2018.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

Louis Guirola, Jr.
United States District Judge
-3-