Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Rehab Services, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan

March 3, 2017

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSAL REHAB SERVICES, INC., PHYSIOFLEX, P.L.L.C., SUMMIT MEDICAL GROUP, P.L.L.C., DAVID JANKOWSKI, D.O., and AHMAD T. ABULABON, P.T., Defendants.

          Victoria A. Roberts District Judge.

          ORDER DEEMING RESOLVED IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF STATE FARM'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE SUMMIT DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS (DE 159)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Judge Roberts has referred this case to me to conduct all non-dispositive pretrial proceedings. (DE 165.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff State Farm's January 19, 2017 motion to compel Defendant Summit Medical Group, P.L.L.C. and Defendant David Jankowski, D.O. (“the Summit Defendants”) to produce responsive documents. (DE 159.) As set forth in State Farm's argument, the requests at issue concern (a) patient files related to the seven patients identified in the complaint; (b) patient files for Summit and non-party Summit Physicians Group (SPG) patients who received physical therapy at Defendant Universal Rehab Services and Defendant PhysioFlex (“the PT clinics”); and (c) electronically stored information (ESI) pursuant to agreed-upon search terms. (DE 159 at 25-31.)

         The Summit Defendants have filed a response, arguing that (a) information regarding non-State Farm insured patients is not relevant to this case and (b) they have produced all patient files in their possession. (DE 169 at 22-23.) In reply, Plaintiff State Farm asserts that the Summit Defendants must produce (a) “ESI according to the agreed-upon search terms, ” and (b) “files for non-[State Farm] insureds [who] also received PT at Universal and/or PhysioFlex[.]” (DE 170 at 6-11.)

         A hearing was noticed for February 27, 2017, on which date counsel for the parties appeared in my courtroom. (DE 174.)[1] On the same date, the parties filed a joint statement of resolved and unresolved issues, indicating that the issue concerning the records of patients identified in the complaint has been resolved. (DE 184.) Therefore, the Court need only address the other two issues.

         Having considered the motion papers and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, which are incorporated by this reference as though fully restated herein, State Farm's motion to compel (DE 159) is GRANTED as follows:

. As to responsive ESI:
■ Utilizing a date range of January 1, 2009 to present, Defendant Summit Medical Group and Defendant Jankowski shall search all documents and emails stored on all computers, hard drives, smartphones, laptops, and personal electronic devices in the Defendants' possession, custody or control using the following search terms, and produce the responsive documents and emails to Plaintiff State Farm (see DE 159-25 at 2):
.Search terms as set forth in motion Exhibit 24 (DE 159-25 at 3-9)
. An additional search term of Ybana W/3 of Agrelo
. E-mail addresses mike@45.com, mangelo@gmail.com, mangelo3362@gmail.com, yba98@aol.com and djanko1@aol.com.
. As to patient files for non-State Farm insureds who were also treated by Universal Rehab Services and PhysioFlex:
■ The requested information is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, in light of the various RICO counts within the amended complaint (DE 107), the amount in controversy, the importance to the needs of the case, the respective burdens on the parties, the parties' relative access to the information, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). State Farm is entitled to discovery related to all victims of the alleged racketeering scheme and regarding allegedly fraudulent claims made to insurers other than Plaintiff State Farm, because such information would tend to support the finding of a pattern of mail fraud and / or identify the number of victims.
■ In order to reduce the burden of fulfilling this request, and as stipulated on the record, the following ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.