9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 135a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Insurer’s motion for protective order is granted, and medical provider is prohibited from seeking production of documents, agreements, and software programs and propounding interrogatories related to insurer’s PIP Claim Computer System, which calculates whether a medical bill is reasonable for purposes of PIP claim reductions
DR. MICHAEL BATTEY, D.C., on assignment from Robin Peck, Plaintiff, vs. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division. Case No. 01-002957-CO-039. December 26, 2001. Walter Fullerton, Judge. Counsel: Andrew D. Reeder, Reynolds & Stowell, St Petersburg. Matthew D. Brumley.
PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Plaintiff’s Motion to Rule on Defendant’s Objection to Discovery, on December 18, 2001, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking the production of the following supplemental discovery requests propounded on Defendant by Plaintiff:Plaintiff’s Supplemental Request to Produce
1. Any and all operational, instructional and procedural documents which illustrate the manner in which your PIP Claim Computer System calculates if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions.
2. Any and all documents relied upon by you which induced you to purchase or obtain the elements of your PIP Claim Computer System which calculate if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions.
3. Any and all agreements reflecting the sale or lease of all computer equipment (hardware or software) used to calculate if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions.
4. Any and all software programs purchased, leased or obtained by you or your agents which you use to calculate if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions.Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories To Defendant
1. Please specify the data relied upon by your PIP Claim Computer System which enables your computer system to determine if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions and the manner in which you obtain the data.
2. Please describe with specificity the manner in which your PIP Claim Computer System determines if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions.
3. State the names, address and telephone number of the persons or entities who developed the method by which your PIP Claim Computer System determines if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions, including, but not limited to, any person or entity that supplied you with any and all software programs used by you to determine if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions.
4. State the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any software, hardware, operational, or management consultants you utilized, during the period of time at issue in this litigation, who contributed to your method of determining if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions, including, but not limited to, any person or entity that supplied you with any and all software programs used by you to determine if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions.
5. Please state the names, address and telephone number of the persons and/or entities, currently employed or associated with you, who are presently most familiar with your method of determining if a medical bill is “reasonable” for purposes of PIP claim reductions.
As a result of the Court granting Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, Plaintiff’s Motion to Rule on Defendant’s Objections to Discovery is moot.
* * *
