The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAVID DAY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:19-cv-1522-T-33TGW
SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL,
INC. d/b/a DOCTORS HOSPITAL
OF SARASOTA,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Plaintiff David Day’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Thomas G.
Wilson’s Discovery Order (Doc. # 178), filed on September 15,
2020. In the order at issue, entered on September 4, 2020,
the Magistrate granted Defendant Sarasota Doctors Hospital,
Inc’s Motion for Reconsideration on Motion to Compel. (Doc.
# 176). On September 25, 2020, Doctors Hospital filed a
response. (Doc. # 181). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court overrules the Objection.
I. Background
Both the Court and the parties are familiar with the
facts underlying this case. Accordingly, the Court need not
reiterate them here.
Day initially filed this action in state court on
November 30, 2017. (Doc. # 1). On May 23, 2019, Day filed a
motion to amend his complaint in state court, which was
granted on June 20, 2019. (Id.). Notably, the amended
complaint also included a putative class action. (Doc. # 1-1
at 13-14). On June 24, 2018, Doctors Hospital removed the
case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). (Doc. # 1).
On September 30, 2019, Day filed a second amended
complaint. (Doc. # 46). On March 4, 2020, Day moved the Court
to compel Doctors Hospital to produce a number of contracts
between the Hospital and insurance carriers. (Doc. # 94 at
18). The Magistrate denied the motion without prejudice on
March 9, 2020. (Doc. # 95). Day then filed an amended motion
to compel production of those contracts (Doc. # 96), which
the Magistrate granted in part on July 10, 2020. (Doc. # 149).
In that order, the Magistrate directed Doctors Hospital
to produce “any and all contracts or agreements between
[Doctors Hospital], any entity and any insurance carrier
which mandate and/or delineate the amount that [Doctors
Hospital] or any entity related to [Doctors Hospital] can
charge insurers for specific medical services or the amount
of fees that [Doctors Hospital] will accept from such insurers
for specific medical services from January 1, 2015, to date.”
(Doc. # 96 at 18; Doc. # 149). This amounted to over 1,000
contracts, which Doctors Hospital alleges are “proprietary,
confidential, intrusive,” and “commercially sensitive.” (Doc.
# 179 at 2-4).
Following significant discovery and a number of other
motions to compel, Day filed a motion to certify class on
June 1, 2020 (Doc. # 119), which the Court denied on July 23,
2020. (Doc. # 155). On July 30, 2020, Doctors Hospital filed
a motion for reconsideration of the July 10, 2020, order
compelling it to produce its insurance-carrier contracts
because the denial of class certification “resulted in a
significant change in the posture of [the] case.” (Doc. # 157
at 2). On September 4, 2020, following a hearing, the
Magistrate granted the motion for reconsideration and vacated
the Court’s prior order as to Day’s request for production of
the aforementioned insurance contracts. (Doc. # 176).
On September 15, 2020, Day filed an Objection to the
Magistrate’s order on the motion for reconsideration, arguing
that the Magistrate “erred as a matter of law by ruling that,
because this Court denied class certification, [Day] could no
longer obtain discovery into contracts between [Doctors
Hospital] and insurance carriers which delineate the amount
that [Doctors Hospital] can charge and the amount that
[Doctors Hospital] will accept from such insurers for
specific medical services.” (Doc. # 178 at 5). In the
Objection, Day also requests that the Court extend the second
amended case management and scheduling order’s discovery and
other pretrial deadlines, and the trial date, by sixty days.
(Id.). Doctors Hospital has responded (Doc. # 181), and the
Objection is ripe for review.
II. Legal Standard
When a party timely objects to a magistrate’s discovery
order, the district court must consider the objections and
“modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). This standard is “highly
deferential.” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425
F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005).
“[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there
is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 1351-52 (citation
omitted). An order “is contrary to the law when it fails to
apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of
procedure.” Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1339,
1347 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citation omitted). “A magistrate judge
is afforded broad discretion in issuing pretrial orders
related to discovery and the objecting party must show the
magistrate judge was clearly wrong.” Heller v. Logan
Acquisitions Corp., No. 8:17-cv-1715-T-02TGW, 2018 WL
6075498, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2018) (citing United States
ex rel Ragghianti Founds. III, LLC v. Peter R. Brown Constr.,
No. 8:12-cv-942-T-33MAP, 2013 WL 5290108, at *5 (M.D. Fla.
Sept. 19, 2013)).
III. Analysis
Day argues that the Magistrate’s September 4, 2020,
discovery order was clearly erroneous and contrary to law
because the scope of discovery remains proportional to Day’s
needs in spite of the Court’s denial of class certification.
(Doc. # 178 at 5-6). Day explains that “[t]he requested
contracts go directly to one of the . . . considerations” of
whether the medical charges at issue in this case were
reasonable. (Id. at 6). Additionally, Day notes that the Court
previously held that “Day’s claims entail broad discovery
regardless of the scope of his proposed class.” (Id.).
However, after careful review of the Magistrate’s
September 4, 2020, order, and the record, the Court finds no
“clear error.” To the contrary, the Magistrate’s order
complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26.
Under Rule 26, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b) provides a number of factors
that courts may consider in determining the scope of
discovery, including “the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’
relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.
There are “three major grounds justifying
reconsideration [of a court’s order]: (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; [and] (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A.,
153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). “A motion for
reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely address
issues litigated previously.” Kaplan v. Kaplan, No. 2:10-cv-
237-FtM-36SPC, 2011 WL 13141502, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14,
2011) (citation omitted).
Here, the Magistrate granted Doctors Hospital’s motion
for reconsideration and vacated in part the previous order
granting the motion to compel because the denial of class
certification significantly changed the posture of the case.
(Doc. # 176; Doc. # 179 at 8-11). Because of this change, the
Magistrate found that production of the insurance contracts
became overly burdensome. (Doc. # 179 at 8-11). Indeed,
significant information sought by Day was already publicly
available and the amount in controversy in the case decreased
dramatically following the Court’s denial of class
certification. (Id. at 5). Furthermore, Doctors Hospital had
already produced contracts with three of the largest
insurers. (Doc. # 176, Doc. # 179 at 8-11).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s finding that, due
to the denial of class certification, requiring production of
over 1,000 contracts was not proportional to Day’s needs and
was overly burdensome for Doctors Hospital. Thus, the
Magistrate’s September 4, 2020, order was neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. To the extent that Day also
seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of an extension
of the deadlines in the second amended case management and
scheduling order, that request is denied, as Day premised
this request on the Court’s sustaining the instant Objection.
(Doc. # 178 at 9-10).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Plaintiff David Day’s Objection to the Magistrate’s
September 4, 2020, Discovery Order (Doc. # 178) is
OVERRULED. The Magistrate’s Discovery Order (Doc. # 176)
is AFFIRMED.
(2) Day’s Motion to Extend Deadlines in the Second Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 178) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
17th day of October, 2020.
bio I. Heen, jut
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE