21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106PAREInsurance — Discovery — Medical provider is not required to produce contracts between provider and insurance companies or explanations of benefits/reviews from workers’ compensation carriers, Medicaid, or Medicare — Provider is required to produce explanations of benefits/reviews from private insurance companies or provide affidavit substantiating claim that production would entail undue burden and expense
BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a Florida Corporation (assignee of Parenteau, Denise), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division. Case No. 12-007010-SC. July 19, 2013. Myra Scott McNary, Judge. Counsel: Robert Goldman, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVEORDER AND MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
THIS MATTER came before the Court on June 24, 2013 upon the following motions noticed for hearing: Plaintiff’s motions for protective order and to compel better responses to its request for admissions, Defendant’s motions to compel better responses to its initial interrogatories, supplemental interrogatories re: reasonableness, initial request to produce and supplemental request to produce re: reasonableness, Defendant’s motion to compel response to its supplemental request to produce served February 6, 2013 and Defendant’s motion to compel deposition of Plaintiff’s corporate representative (the “discovery motions”), and the parties having resolved certain of the discovery motions by agreement, as more specifically set forth herein, and the court having considered the discovery motions and having heard argument of counsel on those matters on which agreement could not be achieved, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED that the discovery motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
1. The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order in part. Plaintiff shall not be required to produce contracts between Plaintiff and insurance companies, which contracts contain proprietary, confidential and trade secret information.
2. Plaintiff shall not be required to produce Explanations of Benefits and Explanations of Reviews provided to Plaintiff from worker’s compensation carriers. Progressive Auto Pro Insurance Company v. Doctor’s Pain Management Associates, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1010a (9th Cir. in and for Orange County, Fla., July 17, 2007).
3. Plaintiff shall not be required to produce Explanations of Benefits and Explanations of Reviews provided to Plaintiff from medicare or medicaid. “Medicare cannot be deemed to bear the same or substantively similar legal characteristics as automobile insurance, as medicare is social welfare legislation passed by Congress to aid the general health and welfare of those over 65 year of age and is not an insurance program within the ordinary meaning of the words.” Physician’s Group, LLCX v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 961a (12th Cir. in and for Sarasota County, Fla., August 12, 2009).
4. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order with regard to Explanations of Benefits and Explanations of Reviews provided to Plaintiff from private insurance companies, provided however, that the Court is unable to address Plaintiff’s contention that production may entail undue burden and expense, until Plaintiff provides an affidavit, the requirements of which are enumerated in paragraph 5 below.
5. For those categories of document requests which are not the subject of paragraphs 1-3 of this order and for which Plaintiff has objected on the grounds that production would be onerous and unduly burdensome, Plaintiff shall either produce the documents requested or provide an affidavit within 30 days, detailing the hours, cost and hardship involved associated with the production of those documents.
6. By agreement of counsel, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Initial Interrogatories is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall provide better answers to interrogatory numbers 2, 4c, 4d, 4e, 5, 11 and 12 of Defendant’s initial interrogatories, within 30 days.
7. By agreement of counsel, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall provide a better answer to interrogatory number 2 of Defendant’s supplemental interrogatories re reasonableness, within 30 days.
8. By agreement of counsel, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Initial Request for Production and Supplemental Request for Production is GRANTED in part, as follows: With respect to those requests of Defendant’s initial request to produce and Defendant’s supplemental request to produce re: reasonableness for which Plaintiff has indicated that it is conducting a diligent search in order to ascertain whether responsive documents exist (initial request to produce nos. 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 33, 35 and supplemental request to produce nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 19), Plaintiff shall have 30 days to provide a better response.
9. By agreement of counsel, Plaintiff’s motion to compel better responses to request for admissions is GRANTED. Defendant shall have 20 days to provide better responses.
10. By agreement of counsel, Defendant’s motion to compel deposition of Plaintiff’s corporate representative is DENIED as moot, as the parties have scheduled the deposition of Plaintiff’s corporate representative to be held on July 17, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.
11. By agreement of counsel, Defendant’s motion to compel response to its supplemental request to produce served February 2, 2013 is DENIED as moot, as Plaintiff has served its response to that discovery request.
* * *
