11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 162a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Objections to interrogatories related to data used to reduce CPT codes are overruled — Database and data provided must be kept confidential, may be used only on instant case and by persons/entities involved on case, and will be placed under seal if they are to be made part of any public record associated with case
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS IMAGING CENTERS, L.C., ASSIGNEE FOR EIDA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 03-SC-000387-19-U. November 19, 2003. Donald L. Marblestone, Judge. Counsel: Yvette Rodriguez, Orlando. Peter A. Shapiro, Law Offices of Peter A. Shapiro, Orlando.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Following the hearing of November 3, 2003, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is ruled on as follows.
2. Prior to the hearing, Defendant agreed to provide a better more specific and detailed answer to interrogatories #2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 19.
3. At the hearing David Arrington, Esq. appeared by telephone for Ingenix, 2525 Lake Park Blvd, West Valley, Utah 84120. Ingenix is the company that supplies the data to Mitchell Medical which is the company that contracts with Defendant to provide the database system that was used to audit and reduce Plaintiff’s billing.
4. Defendant and Ingenix agreed to provide Plaintiff with the database and the data was used to reduce the CPT codes at issue in this case — date of service 7/1/02, CPT codes 72040, 72100, 73560, 73660. This information is responsive to requests for production #24, 26, 27 for which Defendant’s objections were overruled.
5. The Court overrules Defendant’s objections to the following interrogatories and orders Defendant to provide a better, more specific and detailed answer to interrogatories: #12, 15a (for the years 2001, 2003, 2003) — (part of the answer should provide information similar to requests for production #28 and 34 so the Court is not requiring those documents to be produced at this time; however, Plaintiff may bring the matter back for the Court to re-consider), 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.
6. The Court overrules Defendant’s objections to the following request for production and orders Defendant to provide the documents/information requested: #25, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37.
7. As to request for production #31, Plaintiff limited it to the geographic area of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard counties. The Court orders Defendant to either provide the information requested or to provide an explanation of exactly what is involved in producing the material as well as the name and address of a person within the Defendant’s company with knowledge of such so that the Court may conduct a hearing with that person present to inquire further. The Court will then decide on the production of the materials requested.
8. As to the database and data discussed in paragraph 3 above, interrogatories #16 (as to the database figures), #18 (as to the database figures), request for production #25, 35, the materials must be kept confidential. The materials may only be used on this case and by persons/entities involved on this case. If the materials are to be made a part of any public record associated with this case, the materials shall be placed under seal.
9. The above discovery shall be produced to Plaintiff no later than December 3, 2003, 5PM. However, Defendant shall have until January 2, 2004, 5PM to provide the discovery ordered above as to request for production #29, 33, 36, 37.
* * *
