IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-CV-61007-AHS

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Healthcare System

(“Memorial”), hereby serves its Responses to Defendants’ Second Request for Production of 

Documents to Plaintiff, dated August 20, 2021.

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL

DISTRICT, D/B/A MEMORIAL 

HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, on its own behalf 

and on behalf of other similarly situated 

healthcare facilities, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

ELAP SERVICES, LLC, a Pennsylvania 

limited liability company, and GROUP & 

PENSION ADMINISTRATORS, INC. a 

Texas corporation,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 89-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 1 of 6
2

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Benjamin J. Widlanski

Gail McQuilkin, Esq.

gam@kttlaw.com

Fla. Bar No. 969338

Benjamin J. Widlanski., Esq.

bwidlanski@kttlaw.com 

Florida Bar No. 1010644

Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. 

tjl@kttlaw.com

Fla. Bar No. 99519

Michael R. Lorigas, Esq.

mlorigas@kttlaw.com

Fla. Bar No. 123597

Eric S. Kay, Esq.

ekay@kttlaw.com

Fla. Bar No. 1011803

KOZYAK TROPIN &

THROCKMORTON LLP

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 372-1800 

/s/ Douglas A. Wolfe

Douglas A. Wolfe, Esq.

doug@wolfepincavage.com

Fla. Bar No. 28671

Danya J. Pincavage, Esq.

danya@wolfepincavage.com

Fla. Bar No. 14616

Omar Ali-Shamaa, Esq.

omar@wolfepincavage.com

Fla. Bar No. 121461

WOLFE | PINCAVAGE

2937 SW 27th Ave.

Suite 302

Miami, FL 33133

Telephone: (786) 409-0800

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 89-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 2 of 6
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 29, 2021, the foregoing was served via 

electronic mail on:

Counsel for Defendants

FISHERBROYLES, LLP

Robert T. Wright, Jr., Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 185525

Irene Oria, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 484570

199 E. Flagler St. #550

Miami, FL 33131

robert.wright@fisherbroyles.com

irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com

Patrick M. Emery, Esq. (pro hac vice)

Kris Alderman, Esq. (pro hac vice)

945 East Paces Ferry Rd NE, Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA 30326

patrick.emery@fisherbroyles.com

kris.alderman@fisherbroyles.com

AKERMAN LLP

Irene Bassel Frick, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 0158739

401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1700

Tampa, FL 33602-5250

irene.basselfrick@akerman.com

 /s/ Benjamin J. Widlanski

 Benjamin J. Widlanski

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 89-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 3 of 6
4

OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ INSTRUCTIONS & DEFINITIONS

1. Memorial objects to the definition of “Hospital.” The definition is overbroad and 

includes facilities not at issue in this action, including Memorial Primary Care, Memorial Urgent 

Care, and Memorial Manor. 

2. Memorial objects to the definition of “Plan” as vague and overbroad. As discussed 

in Memorial’s Amended Complaint, ELAP fails to disclose its role as the “designated decision 

maker,” and, therefore, Memorial is unaware which self-funded healthcare plans ELAP serves as 

a designated decision maker. Memorial will respond to the extent it is aware which self-funded 

healthcare plans ELAP serves as the designated decision maker. 

3. Memorial objects to the definition of “Patient” as vague and overbroad. As 

discussed in Memorial’s Amended Complaint, ELAP conceals its identity, and, therefore,

Memorial is unable to determine which patients are members of a self-funded plan administered 

by ELAP. Memorial also objects to the definition to the extent it includes patients at other 

healthcare facilities in the potential putative class. Memorial will respond to the extent it is aware 

which patients are members or beneficiaries of a self-funded healthcare plan administered by 

ELAP. 

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

106. Copies of the data reports or documents reviewed by Jeffrey Bross to prepare his 

Declaration dated July 30, 2021.

Response: Objection. This request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the 

case. Memorial further objects to this request on the basis that U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia O. 

Valle already denied Defendants’ prior requests for production and interrogatories (e.g.,

Interrogatory Nos. 5 – 7 and Request for Production Nos. 59 – 61) seeking the same reimbursement 

data requested in Request No. 106. See D.E. 73. Specifically, the Court ruled that Memorial was 

to provide the 2021 transparency report, along with a stipulation as to the applicability of the 

reimbursement rates in the 2021 transparency report to the relevant time period (2016 – 2020),

and/or represent any changes to the rates in 2016 – 2020 on percentage basis compared to the rates 

in the 2021 transparency report. June 24, 2021 Hr’g Tr. at 130:6-25; 131:1-13; 180:13-20. 

Defendants explicitly agreed to this approach during the June 24, 2021 hearing on Defendants’ 

five motions to compel. Id. at 129:13-25; 130:1-25; 131:1-13. Memorial complied with the Court’s 

Order and provided Defendants with a sworn declaration relating to the reimbursement data.

Defendant’s request for the underlying data is therefore irrelevant to the to the claims at issue,

beyond the scope of this matter, and violates the Court’s June 24, 2021 order denying Defendants’ 

motions to compel.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 89-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 4 of 6
5

107. A spreadsheet or other report reflecting the data points on the UB-04, EDI 835, and 

EDI 837 forms for each Healthcare Claim. 

Response: None. Memorial is unable to run a report reflecting all the data points on the 

UB-04, EDI 835, and EDI 837 for the claims at issue. 

108. A copy of each version of the spreadsheets, reports, or other documents prepared or 

used by SBHD’s managed care and/or compliance departments to track Healthcare Claims, 

including the “report” and/or the “reference based pricing spreadsheet” referenced in the document

produced by SBHD at Bates number MHS011603 and other records produced by SBHD to date.

Response: Objection. This request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional 

to the needs of the case as it seeks every version of a confidential spreadsheet, and Memorial is 

unable to discern (much less retrieve) every version of such spreadsheets or reports. Memorial 

further objects to this request as it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and 

work-product doctrine, as these documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. See 

Memorial’s Privilege Log. Moreover, Memorial has previously produced a spreadsheet identifying 

the claims at issue. Thus, Memorial’s reference-based pricing spreadsheet(s), which may include 

claims for payors that are not parties or part of this action is wholly irrelevant and beyond the 

scope of this action. 

109. All communications concerning the documents produced in response to the foregoing 

Request No. 106.

Response: See Memorial’s response to RFP No. 106. Memorial further objects to this 

request as it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product 

doctrine. See Memorial’s Privilege Log. 

110. Copies of any data or reports provided by SBHD to the American Hospital Association 

for its Annual Survey of Hospitals (as referenced in the document produced by SBHD at Bates 

number MHS000252) between 2016 and 2020. 

Response: Objection. This request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the 

case. Data or reports provided to the American Hospital Association regarding the Annual Survey 

of Hospitals bears no perceptible relevance to this action, as the American Hospital Association is 

not a party nor a potential class member. Moreover, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle has 

already denied Defendants’ prior requests for production and interrogatories (e.g., Interrogatory 

Nos. 5, 6, 10 and Request for Production Nos. 28, 29, 57, 58) seeking similar cost and 

reimbursement information requested in Request No. 110. See D.E. 73. Specifically, the Court 

ruled that Memorial was to provide the Medicare Cost Reports for 2016 – 2020 and stipulate as to 

the applicability of the cost information in those reports. June 24, 2021 Hr’g Tr. at 179:14-24. The 

Court also ruled that Memorial was to provide its reimbursement information by providing the 

2021 transparency report, along with a stipulation as to the applicability of the reimbursement rates 

in the 2021 transparency report to the relevant time period (2016 – 2020), and/or represent any 

changes to the rates in 2016 – 2020 on percentage basis compared to the rates in the 2021 

transparency report. Id. at 130:6-25; 131:1-13; 180:13-20. Defendants explicitly agreed to this 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 89-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 5 of 6
6

approach during the June 24, 2021 hearing on Defendants’ five motions to compel. Id. at 129:13-

25; 130:1-25; 131:1-13. Memorial complied with the Court’s Order and stipulated to the 

applicability of the Medicare Cost Reports and provided Defendants with a sworn declaration 

relating to the reimbursement data. Defendant’s request for the underlying data is therefore 

irrelevant to the to the claims at issue, beyond the scope of this matter, and violates the Court’s 

June 24, 2021 order denying Defendants’ motions to compel. 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 89-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 6 of 6