16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1065a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1611BART
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Database program — Medical provider is instructed to subpoena third-party owner of database/auditing system used to reduce bills at issue to obtain information on database program that is not in possession of insurer — If information is not produced by insurer or owner, testimony from owner’s agents or employees may not be heard at trial
FLORIDA MEDICAL & INJURY CENTER, INC., as assignee of Nida Bartolome, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant. County Court,19th Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County. Case No. 08-SC-765. September 16, 2009. Ronald A. Legendre, Judge. Counsel: Michael Tierney, Michael Tierney, P.A., Winter Park. G. Douglas Nail and Julia M. Pinnell, Orlando.
ORDER ON 9/1/09 HEARING REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS TO REQUEST TO PRODUCE NUMBERS 32 THROUGH 43.
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court, and the Court having reviewed the Motion(s) and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, numbers 32 through 43, regarding the AIS computer program are OVERRULED IN PART.
2. Defendant’s assertions that Plaintiff’s requests are vague, overly broad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, protected by work product privilege, and/or otherwise privileged and non-discoverable, confidential and proprietary in nature and/or trade secret are STRIKEN from numbers 32 through 43.
3. The Court specifically indicated, on the record, that a portion of Defendant’s objections to numbers 32 through 43 were not overruled, but struck most of their objections. Specifically, the Court indicated only the following portions of Defendant’s objections remain:
32: “Defendant responds that it is not in possession of the database/auditing system.”
33: “None at this time.”
34: “Defendant responds that it is not in possession of the database/auditing system.”
35: “Defendant responds none in Defendant’s possession.”
36-43: “None.”
4. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was instructed to subpoena AIS, as a third-party, in order to attempt to obtain information regarding the AIS database program which was used to reduce the bills at issue. The Court further stated that should this information not be produced, either by AIS or the Defendant, then testimony from AIS agents or employees may not be heard at trial.
