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.

Surgical Center of Southfield, L.L.C v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 10, 2020

SURGICAL CENTER OF SOUTHFIELD, L.L.C., d/b/a Fountain View Surgery Center, and ISPINE, P.L.L.C., Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          GERSHWIN A. DRAIN JUDGE

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF ISPINE, P.L.L.C.'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 35)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter came before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff ISpine, P.L.L.C.'s (Plaintiff's) motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 35), Defendant's response in opposition (ECF No. 36), and the parties' joint list of unresolved issues (ECF No. 48). Judge Drain referred this motion to me for a hearing and determination. (ECF No. 37.) A hearing was held on January 10, 2020, at which counsel appeared and the Court entertained oral argument regarding Plaintiff's motion.

         Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and for all of the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein, Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

         • Interrogatories:

o Plaintiff WITHDRAWS Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 19.
o Interrogatory No. 3: Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 3 is SUSTAINED. The Court finds Defendant's answer to Interrogatory No. 3 to be adequate and will not compel any further response.
o Interrogatory No. 4: Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 4 is SUSTAINED. The Court finds Defendant's answer to Interrogatory No. 4 to be adequate and will not compel any further response.
o Interrogatory No. 6: Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 6 is SUSTAINED. The Court finds Defendant's answer to Interrogatory No. 6 to be adequate and will not compel any further response.
o Interrogatory No. 9: Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 9 is SUSTAINED, as the request is disproportionate to the needs of the case, and the Court will not compel any further response.
o Interrogatory No. 11: Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 11 on the basis of relevance is OVERRULED, but its objection on the basis that the interrogatory is overbroad is SUSTAINED. To cure the overbroadness, Defendant will answer Interrogatory No. 11 only as to the CPT Codes stated on the record - 63075, 63076, 22856, 22858, 69990, and 77003.
o Interrogatory No. 16: Defendant's objections to Interrogatory No. 16 are OVERRULED, but the Court strikes the words “using prodisc-C 12x15x5mm tall for each vertebral section” from the interrogatory. Defendant is ordered to SUPPLEMENT its response for the CPT Codes and years listed in the interrogatory.
o Interrogatory No. 20: Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 20 on the basis that it is overbroad is SUSTAINED. The Court will substitute the word “handled” for “with respect to, ” in Interrogatory No. 20, and will require that Defendant answer to the extent that the e-mail addresses requested are not in the file already produced by Defendant. Further, the request will be limited to communications regarding ISpine and Dr. Pribil.

         • Requests ...


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.