Mason et al v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 343

ORDER: HMA Defendants' 329 Motion to Compel Responses to Certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production and to Amend the Case Management Order to Permit Seven Additional Requests for Production is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 27 and 29 and Request for Production Nos. 50, 57, 61, 68, 70, 72, and 73 as described in the Order. Signed by District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on 1/23/2023. (mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-00472-KDB
THOMAS L. MASON, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

HEALTH MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Health Management Associates, LLC
(“HMA”), Mooresville Hospital Management Associates, LLC (“Lake Norman”), and Statesville
HMA, LLC’s (“Davis Regional”) (collectively, “HMA”) Motion to Compel Responses to Certain
Interrogatories and Requests for Production and to Amend the Case Management Order to Permit
Seven Additional Requests for Production. (Doc. No. 329). While on the one hand Plaintiffs appear
to concede that HMA is entitled to some amount of additional documents related to Plaintiffs’
damages claims (“Plaintiffs fully recognize the need for … an appropriate level of discovery on
damages … [so] [t]he main issue … now is how much more do the HMA Defendants need [after
Plaintiffs’ earlier and promised productions of documents]”), they oppose HMA’s motion in its
entirety on the grounds that the requests are overbroad, irrelevant and not sufficiently justified by
HMA’s damages expert. See Doc. No. 333 at 2.

1
Case 3:10-cv-00472-KDB Document 343 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 7

Recently, at Plaintiffs’ request, the Court has granted motions to reconvene certain
depositions1 based on the evolving nature of the litigation and with the overall goal to allow both
parties to reasonably obtain information potentially relevant to their claims and defenses. Here,
HMA’s disputed damages discovery appears to the Court to be within the bounds of permissible
discovery and an appropriate effort to react and respond to the Court’s recent explanation and
clarification of the proper scope of damages. See Doc. No. 295. Accordingly, for the reasons and
in the manner discussed below, the Court will GRANT the motion.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

The rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction. Herbert v. Lando,
441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); CareFirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390,
402 (4th Cir. 2003). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Where a party fails to respond to an interrogatory or a request for production of documents,
the party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer to the interrogatories or
the production of documents responsive to the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The party
resisting discovery bears the burden of establishing the legitimacy of its objections. See Earthkind,

1

A motion to reopen additional depositions has been filed by Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 338). The
Court’s ruling on this motion is not intended to in any way suggest or prejudge the merits of that
motion, which will be considered separately after it is ripe for a decision. Indeed, while the Court
believes that the parties should have a reasonable opportunity to pursue discovery, that view is not
unbounded and discovery must come to an end at some point to allow the litigation to proceed.
2
Case 3:10-cv-00472-KDB Document 343 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 7

LLC v. Lebermuth Co. Inc., No. 519CV00051KDBDCK, 2021 WL 183413, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Jan.
19, 2021); Eramo v. Rolling Stone LLC, 314 F.R.D. 205, 209 (W.D. Va. 2016) (“[T]he party or
person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel discovery, bears the burden of
persuasion.” (quoting Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C.
2010))); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Ultimately, the decision to grant or to deny a motion to compel
production rests within the broad discretion of the trial court. See Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon,
Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 (4th Cir. 1995) (“This Court affords a district court
substantial discretion in managing discovery and reviews the denial or granting of a motion to
compel discovery for abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)); LaRouche v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 780
F.2d 1134, 1139 (4th Cir. 1986) (“A motion to compel discovery is addressed to the sound
discretion of the district court.”).
II.

DISCUSSION

As discussed above, parties are generally entitled to discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any claim or defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Indeed, relevant
information need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id.; see Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk
Sols., Inc., No. 516CV00009KDBDCK, 2020 WL 1164690, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2020). There
appears to be no dispute, nor could there be, that documents related to Plaintiffs’ damages claims
and the “protected activity” alleged by Plaintiffs are generally relevant and discoverable. The devil,
as always, is in the details.
Before discussing the disputed discovery requests below, the Court will briefly address the
issue of the number of discovery requests. This litigation has already spanned over a decade and
consumed a tremendous amount of time and effort by the parties and the Court. The Court’s focus,
as should be the parties’, is on the merits of the parties’ claims and defenses rather than procedural

3
Case 3:10-cv-00472-KDB Document 343 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 7

disputes that do not further that determination. An argument over the number – rather than the
contents - of the challenged discovery requests in this context (where HMA’s initial requests were
based on Plaintiffs’ earliest theory of damages, the Court has recently issued a guiding ruling on
damages and HMA has consolidated some of its requests), does nothing more than elevate form
over substance. Therefore, the Court will permit HMA to expand the number of discovery requests,
so long as they seek permissible discovery (which they do as described below).
Interrogatory No. 27
Interrogatory No. 27 requests that Plaintiffs “identify by Bates number each document that
evidences or constitutes MEMA . . . engaging in protected activity under the claims alleged by you
in this Lawsuit.” HMA contends that Plaintiffs have failed to respond to this interrogatory with
particularity. Plaintiffs respond that “protected activity” is a broad concept and that they have
sufficiently answered Interrogatory 27 in their incorporated response to Interrogatory 28, which
requests that Plaintiffs “identify by Bates number each document that you contend evidences or
supports your claim that the contracts between MEMA and Lake Norman, and MEMA and Davis
Regional, were terminated in retaliation for protected activity engaged in by MEMA.” 2 The Court
finds that while documents actually reflecting “protected activity” under the False Claims Act may
be included within the scope of the more expansive Interrogatory 28, HMA is entitled to a response
to Interrogatory 27 identifying only those documents that Plaintiffs contend “evidence or constitute
protected activity,” for example, “email communications between MEMA physicians and HMA
executives objecting to the pressure to commit fraud and alerting the HMA Defendants to the
improper nature of their actions,” see Doc No. 334 at 4, or meeting notes that reflect such criticism

Plaintiffs also suggest that there is a substantial amount of oral testimony that reflects “protected
activity.” Even assuming this is true, it is irrelevant to HMA’s request for the identification and
production of documentary evidence.
2

4
Case 3:10-cv-00472-KDB Document 343 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 7

(as distinguished from all reports of meetings where Plaintiffs allege concerns were raised, but not
reflected in the notes). Therefore, Plaintiffs will be compelled to respond to Interrogatory 27.
Interrogatory No. 29 and Requests for Production Related to Damages
The remainder of the discovery requests in dispute3 relate to damages. As it relates to
discovery, Plaintiffs have repeatedly referenced the “substantial amount in controversy” as
justification for the breadth of their discovery requests. See Doc. No. 183 at 24 (“Plaintiffs are now
seeking damages in excess of $100 million on their private causes of action. The amount in
controversy warrants robust discovery.”); Doc. No. 251 at 11 (“[T]he amount in controversy
certainly justifies robust discovery.”). Simply put, the Court agrees with HMA that this “robust
discovery” should flow equally to HMA, in particular with respect to discovery related to the
calculation of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.
Specifically, Plaintiffs object to HMA’s damages requests as “overly broad and unduly
burdensome.” As noted above, Plaintiffs are seeking a substantial amount of damages over a
lengthy period of time (15 years) related to the complex financial accounts of a hospital based
medical practice, so it is no surprise that damages discovery would be broad and extensive. Further,
HMA has proffered its damages expert’s declaration that the discovery requested is relevant to his
evaluation of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.
In its most recent Order relating to damages, the Court clarified that based on the “make
whole” limitations of permissible FCA damages and MEMA’s nature as a “flow through entity,”

Based on Plaintiffs’ representations in their response regarding Request for Production Nos. 51,
52, 67, and 74, including their commitment to produce additional documents responsive to Request
Nos. 51 and 67, HMA has withdrawn their motion to compel additional responses to those
requests. Therefore, the discovery requests still at issue related to damages are Interrogatory No.
29 and Request for Production Nos. 50, 57, 61, 68, 70, 72, and 73.
3

5
Case 3:10-cv-00472-KDB Document 343 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 7

the measure of damages should focus on the net losses sustained by those who were MEMA’s
shareholders at the time of the challenged terminations at Lake Norman and Davis Regional
hospitals. See Doc. No. 295. Based on that ruling (which necessitates calculation of actual profits
and losses over time together with distribution schedules, shareholder information, etc.) and the
Court’s review of HMA’s discovery requests the Court finds that HMA’s requests are not overly
broad in accordance with the “robust discovery” that the Court has previously allowed.
Further, with respect to Plaintiffs’ argument that HMA’s discovery is “unduly
burdensome,” Plaintiffs have not described with any specificity the burden – in terms of hours or
expense – they would have to bear in responding to HMA’s requests. See Mason v. Health Mgmt.
Assocs., LLC, No. 3:10-CV-00472-KDB, 2022 WL 4388288, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2022)
(“[t]he party resisting discovery bears the burden of persuading the Court of the legitimacy of its
objections.”); see also, Papanicolas v. Project Execution & Control Consulting, LLC, No. CIV.A.
CBD-12-1579, 2015 WL 1242755, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2015) (party opposing discovery must
“allege specific facts that indicate the nature and extent of the burden, usually by affidavits or other
reliable evidence”). Without such a showing, which Plaintiffs urged the Court to require of HMA
with respect to its discovery objections, the Court cannot evaluate the proportionality of the burden
imposed by HMA’s discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ generalized complaints of undue
burden cannot be sustained.
Finally, as with Interrogatory No. 27, Plaintiffs argue that documents and information
already provided are sufficient responses to HMA’s discovery requests. To the extent that
Plaintiffs have already produced the specific documents requested (or the documents do not exist
or cannot be obtained) then Plaintiffs need only clearly document that information in a
supplemental response to HMA’s discovery. However, the Court will compel Plaintiffs to produce

6
Case 3:10-cv-00472-KDB Document 343 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 7

the documents requested to the extent they have not previously been produced, even if Plaintiffs
hold the view that they are cumulative of other information or otherwise “unnecessary.”4
Therefore, Plaintiffs will be ordered to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 29 and Request
for Production Nos. 50, 57, 61, 68, 70, 72, and 73.
III.

ORDER

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The HMA Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Certain Interrogatories and
Requests for Production and to Amend the Case Management Order to Permit Seven Additional
Requests for Production (Doc. No. 329) is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 27 and 29 and
Request for Production Nos. 50, 57, 61, 68, 70, 72, and 73 as described above.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

Signed:

January 23, 2023

2023

4

Of course, the Court expects that HMA will act in the utmost good faith in carefully evaluating
any particular claim by Plaintiffs that information being requested is not needed in light of other
documents already produced.
7
Case 3:10-cv-00472-KDB Document 343 Filed 01/23/23 Page 7 of 7