Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01419/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01419-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LAURIE MILLER, BRIAN DIMAS, )

KIM MILLS, ANTHONY SOZA, )

BRUCE CAMPBELL, KELLIE ) 2:13-cv-1419 JWS

BOWERS, TIM HUNTER, BRIAN )

SAYLOR, MICHAEL SCHAMADAN, )

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) ORDER AND OPINION

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE )

OF HIS WIFE, BRANDI SCHAMADAN, )

AND JOI KLAGES, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) [Re: Motions at Docket 554, 557, 607]

)

vs. )

)

YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP; THE )

FRANK GATES SERVICE COMPANY )

D/B/A AVIZENT RISK, )

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

At docket 554 Defendant filed a motion for a protective order regarding the

Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) reports the court ordered it to produce at

docket 504, as well as related discovery requests subsequently made by Plaintiffs. At

docket 557 Defendant filed a separate motion for a protective order regarding the

reports and summaries the court ordered it to produce at 504. Plaintiffs filed a

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

combined response to Defendant’s motions and motion to compel production of other

discovery materials. The combined response/motion was originally filed at docket 558,

but was later refiled under seal at docket 607. Defendant filed its combined reply to its

motions and its response to Plaintiffs’ motion at docket 567. Plaintiffs’ reply is at

docket 601. Oral argument was not requested and would not assist the court.

II. BACKGROUND

The basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit and a detailed description of the dispute is

located at docket 23. The parties are familiar with the background of the case, and it

need not be repeated here. For purposes of the discovery motions at issue here,

readers are directed to the order at docket 504, where the court found that York failed

to put forth any evidence to support its assertion that complying with Plaintiffs’ discovery

requests would be too burdensome. The court then directed York to produce “any [IME]

reports authored by Drs. Rockowitz, Beghin, Carter, and Rowley from 2009 to July 2013

in connection with City employees’ workers’ compensation claims” and “any reports or

summaries exchanged either internally or with third-parties between 2009 and July

2013 that have to do with the resolution of workers’ compensation claims for the City

and any reports or summaries dealing with the reduction of claim pay-outs between

2009 and July 2013.” The court instructed York to be prepared to explain and support

the efforts it made to search for documents in the event of subsequent motion practice. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides for liberal discovery: “Parties

may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

-2-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claim or defense.”1

 Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined broadly; “[r]elevant

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”2 The court must limit the

requested discovery if it is shown to be “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative;” if “the

party seeking the discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information;” or if

“the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,

considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources,

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery

in resolving the issues.”3 Additionally, Rule 26(c)(1) permits the court with good cause

to limit discovery in order “to protect a party or person from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” 

On a motion to compel, the party seeking to compel discovery has the initial

burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of

Rule 26(b).4

 In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden to demonstrate that

discovery should not be allowed due to burden or cost and must explain and support its

objections with competent evidence.5 With respect to electronically stored information:

1Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

2Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

3Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

4Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

5See Lind v. United States, No. 13-cv-032, 2014 WL 2930486, at * 3 (D. Ariz. June 30,

2014); Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. j2 Global, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-03434, 2014 WL 232211,

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014).

-3-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 3 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from

sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of

undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective

order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the

information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.

If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from

such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the

limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the

discovery.

6

IV. DISCUSSION

A. IME reports from 2009 through 2011. 

As noted above, at docket 504 the court ordered York to produce “copies of any

[IME] reports authored by Drs. Rockowitz, Beghin, Carter, and Rowley from 2009 to

2013 in connection with the City employees’ workers’ compensation claims.” The court

concluded that those particular IME reports were relevant for purposes of discovery

because information about how the specified doctors sided with York could reasonably

lead to statistical evidence relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. In an effort to comply with the

court’s order, York learned that in 2013 it had previously complied IME data from

January 2012 through May 2013 for the City of Phoenix. The data included the cost of

IMEs, the dates the IMEs were performed, and the doctors who performed them. Based

on that data, York was able to identify which claims involved IMEs by the four doctors

from January 2012 through May 2013 and then locate those files and turn over the

doctors’ IME reports inside the files. There were 61 reports produced in total. 

York now asserts that identifying the claim files that might contain an IME report

authored by one of the four doctors prior to 2012 is too burdensome. York provided an

6Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).

-4-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 4 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

affidavit from Joseph Tracey who worked on compiling the IME data for the City of

Phoenix in 2013. He states that to repeat the task of gathering the same data from

2009 through 2011 would be too burdensome. He indicates that the specific information

ordered to be produced cannot be located simply by employing a global search of

electronic data. Instead, it can only electronically search payment data to isolate at least

some of the files that involved IMEs. The details surrounding those IMEs, such as which

doctor performed the examination, can only be discerned by manual review of the files.

He explains that back in 2013 when they gathered IME data for the City, because of

time and cost concerns, he contacted the IME vendors and requested that they locate

and make a list of the individual doctors who performed each IME that was arranged

through their services. He states that he had no control over how quickly the vendors

completed their search and that it eventually took the vendors two weeks to go through

over 300 files and identify the doctors involved. For the search at issue here, York has

been able to use payment data to narrow down the potentially relevant claim files to

around 800, although the supporting evidence Defendant submitted indicates that it is

impossible to say whether this number accurately reflects all the IMEs that took place

during the applicable time period. York indicates that, given its prior experience in

isolating data from the files, it will take over 200 hours to fully comply with the court’s

order and identify which files contain IME reports by the four doctors. 

York argues that the time and effort required to manually review 800 files and

then redact the reports located in those files is far too burdensome given the needs of

the case and the relevance of the data. In support, York cites to data gathered from the

61 reports it was able to locate and determined that, except for Dr. Rockowitz, the

-5-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 5 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

doctors involved in Plaintiffs’ claims more often than not favored claimants.

Dr. Rockowitz sided with claimants a quarter of the time. The statistical data derived

from the 61 reports located thus far does not appear to be highly relevant to proving

Plaintiffs’ claims. Given the data known and the burden described, the court concludes

that the burden outweighs its likely benefit. 

B. Emails discussing Drs. Rockowitz, Beghin, Carter, and Rowley

Defendant also asks that the court issue a protective order regarding Plaintiffs’

request for all “emails or other communications related to the use of [Drs. Rockowitz,

Beghin, Carter, and Rowley] to perform [IMEs].” Plaintiffs argue that the requested

documents are relevant for purposes of discovery, particularly in light of the court’s

order at docket 504. However, the court notes that its order at docket 504 did not

address emails discussing the four doctors for IMEs. It only required York to produce

IME reports authored by the four doctors because the reports could lead to admissible

statistical data. Moreover, York has demonstrated that it tried to comply with the request

and could only narrow down the potentially responsive emails—that is, emails

containing the names Rockowitz, Beghin, Carter, and Rowley—to 11,516.7 The amount

of time it took to narrow the emails down that far demonstrates that further winnowing

would be unduly burdensome.8 Plaintiffs merely speculate that the emails could contain

some relevant information. While it is possible that the emails could reveal some

relevant piece of information that has not already been discovered, York has convinced

7See doc 554 at pp. 10-11.

8

Id. at p. 11.

-6-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 6 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the court that the likelihood of locating any evidence relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim is

greatly outweighed by the burden involved at this point. 

C. 2013 IME spreadsheet

Plaintiffs have requested that York turn over the IME data it complied in 2013 at

the request of the City of Phoenix. Defendant argues that the document does not fall

within any specific category of Plaintiffs’ requested discovery materials. It also argues

that it already provided the information found in the spreadsheet about the four doctors

involved in Plaintiffs’ workers’ compensations claim and that information about other

doctors York used for IMEs is irrelevant. The court previously found that IME reports

authored by the four doctors involved in Plaintiffs’ claims could be relevant for purposes

of discovery because it could reveal statistical data related to how often the IME doctors

involved in Plaintiffs’ workers’ compensation claims sided in favor of denial. Information

about how often other doctors sided in favor of claim denial is much less relevant to the

claims here. Plaintiffs argue that such information is relevant because it involves data

regarding York’s selection and use of doctors generally, which they assert is at the

heart of their claim. While data as to how often all the doctors used for IMEs aided in

claim denial could potentially be relevant to the case here, the 2013 spreadsheet does

not contain information about claim resolution. That is, it does not give any details about

whether the claims were accepted or denied, what benefits were paid, whether the IME

favored the claimant, or any other details about the way a claim was resolved. It only

provides claimant information, claim type, IME payment information, and the name of

the doctor conducting the IME. The spreadsheet contains no information that could

prove relevant to how and why York chose its IME doctors. In order for the spreadsheet

-7-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 7 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to lead to potentially relevant data, York would have to find the files for the 398 claims

listed in the spreadsheet and then pull the IME reports for each of those files. Again,

however, such an endeavor is too burdensome given that the relevance of IME reports

authored by doctors not involved in Plaintiffs’ claims is marginal.

D. Summaries and reports related to claim resolution and payouts

At docket 504, the court ordered York to search for and produce reports or

summaries involving the resolution of claims or claim payouts. The order recognized

that York did not generate any formal, regular reports for the City of Phoenix and that it

simply provided data on an as needed basis, and that a search f or such ad-hoc data

reports or summaries might prove to be burdensome. However, the court noted that

York did not attempt such a search or provide support for its assertion that it would be

too difficult. York has now attempted to search for any responsive documents. The

parties do not dispute that any ad-hoc reports or summaries exchanged by York

employees would have been via email. Searching every email of every employee who

worked in York’s Phoenix office during the course of a four-year time span was broad,

so the parties agreed on narrowing the search for any emails containing Excel

spreadsheets. That narrowed the search to over 30,000 emails. York then agreed to

search emails for specific terms. That also failed to sufficiently tailor the results,

producing over 25,000 responsive emails. York asserts that it is too burdensome to

continue searching. The court agrees. Plaintiffs’ response brief provides no argument

as to why York should continue to conduct time-intensive searches to retrieve

information that may not even exist. York has shown that the burden here outweighs

the potential value. 

-8-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 8 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E. Emails regarding adjuster performance

At docket 344, the court ordered York to comply with Plaintiffs’ RFP No. 15,

which asked for documents relating to adjuster turnover and personnel analysis for the

adjusters who worked on the City of Phoenix contract. It concluded that “[d]ocuments

showing that adjusters who were more generous in approving claims were taken off the

job or subject to some other negative personnel action, or that those who were less

generous were provided with some benefit could clearly lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.”9 The court clarified that Plaintiffs’ request was intended to

discover records that might show that some adjusters were removed from work on the

City contract while some were not, and it emphasized that York needed to turn over

records which show favorable or unfavorable personnel decisions for adjusters.

Pursuant to the order, York produced assessments, performance improvement plans,

and documents maintained in York’s personnel files related to adjusters Brian Heaton

and Eileen Saige, the only adjusters removed from the City’s account. It also provided

the individual performance reviews of all the adjusters who handled the ten Plaintiffs’

claims. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has not complied with the order because it has

not looked through employee emails to find any discussions about adjuster

performance. York asserts that emails do not fall within the scope of the order and that,

regardless, the task of restoring, searching, and “de-duping” results10 would be too

burdensome and cumulative given that they have already provided performance

9Doc. 3344 at p. 3.

10York refers to the process of removing duplicate emails as de-duping.

-9-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 9 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reviews, and there has not been any indication that continuing an arduous email search

would result in the discovery of relevant evidence. 

After due consideration, the court concludes that York has not fully complied with

the order. The court indicated it should turn over documents related to adjuster

performance. Defendant indicated that it turned over “performance assessments,

performance improvement plans, and documents maintained in York’s personnel file”

for only two adjusters—the two removed from the City’s account. It indicated that for the

other adjusters who were directly involved with Plaintiffs’ claims, it only turned over

individual performance reviews. Defendants are directed to provide any performance

assessments, performance improvement plans, or any other documents in the

personnel files that relate to performance for all the adjusters directly involved with

Plaintiffs’ claims, not just the two who were removed from the City of Phoenix work. As

noted by the court in its prior order, both unfavorable and favorable employment actions

could be relevant. As for email correspondence, the court concludes that York has

demonstrated that a search for all email correspondence regarding the adjusters

involved in this case is unreasonably cumulative given that York will be providing the full

set of relevant documents located in the personnel files and that such a search would

be unduly burdensome given the likely benefit. 

In their briefing on this discovery issue, the parties mention an email that York

turned over during discovery because it was deemed relevant to the handling of Plaintiff

Saylor’s claim. In that email, there was some information about the performance of an

adjuster, Ellen Saige. York redacted the portion of the email discussing Saige’s

performance before turning the email over to Plaintiffs. While the court concludes that

-10-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 10 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

York does not need to engage in an extensive and resource-consuming email search to

seek out emails regarding adjuster performance, it should turn over any emails known

to discuss adjuster performance. An email that has already been located and that has

information about an adjuster’s performance could be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and

should be produced in an unredacted form. Clearly, there is no burden in locating the

email since it is already in York’s possession, and York fails to provide a reason as to

why the redactions were necessary.

11

 

F. Emails regarding Plaintiffs’ workers’ compensation claims

During the discovery process York agreed to conduct a search of certain York

employees’ emails accounts to locate any emails related to the Plaintiffs’ specific

workers’ compensation claims. York provided emails from some of the employees who

were directly involved in Plaintiffs’ workers’ compensation claims: Eileen Saige, Brian

Heaton, Chris Garland, Andrea Lester, Linda Scott, Justin Frear, and Kathy McLeod. It

has not, however, provided the relevant emails from the other adjusters and managers

who were involved with Plaintiffs’ workers’ compensation claims: Eileen Price, Pat

Sampson, Lesia Fejarang, Jane Benge, and Sandra Gonzales. Emails about Plaintiffs’

workers’ compensation claims from those directly involved are reasonably likely to lead

to admissible evidence. York fails to explain why it searched the emails of some of the

applicable adjusters and managers and not others, other than it was a time-consuming

task. Clearly, as noted above, email searching is a time-consuming task, but the court

must balance the burden with the potential relevance of the material sought. Any

11Any private personal identifying information such as social security number, birth date,

or address should remain redacted.

-11-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 11 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

burden in this particular instance is outweighed by the potential relevance given the

employees’ direct connection to Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, the fact that York has

already completed the search of many of the relevant employees’ emails demonstrates

that such a search is not an insurmountable task. 

York did not search the emails of other employees who York claims have no

direct connection to the case—Derick Lewis, Dianne Ward, Eddie Esparza, and Nicole

Ciraolo. It is not clear what relevance these employees have to Plaintiffs’ claims. York

states that they were only marginally involved, and Plaintiffs do not otherwise explain

why these particular employees would be likely to have relevant emails. The court

concludes that the emails of these particular employees do not need to be searched. 

G. Financial documents

Plaintiffs move to compel production of three categories of documents related to

York’s budget for the dedicated City of Phoenix office, including information related to

expenses, revenues, and net profits. Plaintiffs argue that it is relevant to show York’s

financial incentives in denying workers’ compensation claims. York’s response as to

why its budget for its Phoenix office is not relevant here is persuasive. Plaintiffs expert’s

analysis of York’s revenue was derived from billing reviews of already accepted claims

and not claims handling and, moreover, York earns a per-claim flat fee, regardless of

whether a claim is denied, accepted, litigated, or goes unchallenged. Plaintiffs provide

no reply in response to rebut York’s arguments. Thus, the court finds no basis for

concluding the expenses, revenues, and profits of York’s Phoenix office could lead to

admissible evidence regarding York’s incentive to deny workers’ compensation claims.

-12-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 12 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, Defendant’s motions at dockets 554 and

557 are GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs’ motion at docket 607 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Defendant is directed to produce an unredacted version of the email discussing Eileen

Saige’s performance as directed in this order. Defendant is also directed to produce

any emails related to Plaintiffs’ workers compensation claims from the following

employees: Eileen Price, Pat Sampson, Lesia Fejarang, Jane Benge, and Sandra

Gonzales. The motion is otherwise denied. 

DATED this 3rd day of June 2015.

 /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-13-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 639 Filed 06/03/15 Page 13 of 13