13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Where medical provider sent insurer interrogatory seeking procedure reports reflecting charges received by insurer for CPT codes at issue for one-year period within certain zip codes and request to depose corporate representative with the most knowledge of generating procedure reports, and insurer notified provider of intent to seek protective order regarding deposition, but by date of hearing on provider’s motion to compel deposition, insurer had not moved for protective order, motion to compel deposition is granted
ORLANDO PAIN & MEDICAL REHABILITATION CENTER, MW, LLC., As assignee of Lydia Jackson, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit, of Seminole County. Case No. 05-SC-002889. January 25, 2006. John R. Sloop, Judge. Counsel: Roy J. Smith, IV, Weiss Legal Group, P.A., Maitland, for Plaintiff. David Fabrikant, St. Petersburg, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
This cause came before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition. The Court has considered the motion, being fully advised in its premises, and after hearing oral argument of the parties, the Court finds as follows:
1. Ms. Lydia Jackson is a Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.) insured of Defendant with regards to an automobile accident which occurred on or about May 9, 2005.
2. On August 11, 2005, Orlando Pain & Medical Rehabilitation Center, MW, LLC, as the assignee of Lydia Jackson, filed a lawsuit to recover payments for services and supplies provided to Ms. Jackson.
3. On September 20, 2005, Plaintiff sent its “Second Interrogatories to Defendant” which consisted of one interrogatory as follows:
For each of the CPT codes at issue in this case (97110, 97014, G0283, A4556, E0230, and E0943), please list all charges received for these services or products by Defendant for dates of service between September 1, 2004 through September 1, 2005, for medical providers utilizing a zip code in regions 32800 — 32899. Include the provider’s name, the date of service, and the amount charged. In the alternative to listing all of this information in the form of an answer to interrogatories, please provide the “procedure reports” reflecting the above requested information. The term “procedure reports” as utilized in this interrogatory is to have the same meaning as the term “procedure reports” in the attached affidavit of Keith Benefiel attached as exhibit “A.”
4. The August 17, 2005 affidavit of Keith Benefiel, which was attached to this interrogatory, filed with this Court, and previously filed by Defendant in another case before this Court, stated as follows:
COMES NOW, KEITH V. BENEFIEL, and after having been duly sworn states as follows:
1. The “Procedure Reports” provided in response to Plaintiff’s discovery request are a compilation of data collected by Progressive exhibiting charges for dates of service between January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, for medical providers utilizing a zip code in regions 32700 — 32799 where services were rendered.
2. The “Procedure Reports” contain data transmitted by a person with knowledge as the information is derived from Explanation of Benefits forms submitted to Progressive for payment.
3. The “Procedure Reports” are created from data maintained in the course of regularly conducted business activity and it is the practice of Progressive to maintain this data.
4. I am over eighteen years of age and the information contained in this Affidavit is based on my personal knowledge.
(emphasis added).
5. On September 19, 2005, Plaintiff requested by letter the deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representatives with the Most Knowledge of Generating Reports Such as “Procedure Reports.”
6. After receiving no response, Plaintiff unilaterally set the deposition of defendant’s corporate representative for November 30, 2005.
7. On October 26, 2005, Defendant notified Plaintiff of Defendant’s intention of moving for protective order regarding the deposition of this representative.
8. On October 27, 2005 Plaintiff moved to compel the deposition of this corporate representative.
9. By the time of the December 12, 2005 hearing on this matter, Defendant still had not filed a Motion for Protective Order regarding the deposition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition is hereby GRANTED as follows:
A. Plaintiff shall be permitted to take the deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative with the most knowledge of generating reports such as “Procedure Reports.”
B. Defendant shall provide available dates for the deposition of Defendant’s Corporate Representative with the most knowledge of generating reports such as “Procedure Reports” within 10 days of the date of this order.
* * *
