UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-22044-CIV-MARTINEZ-OTAZO-REYES

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE 

CO., GEICO INDEMNITY CO., GEICO 

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and 

GEICO CASUALTY CO.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MANUEL FEIJOO, M.D., MANUEL V. 

FEIJOO, M.D. P.A., WE CARE MEDICAL 

SERVICES, INC, MANUEL MARTINEZ 

VARELA, ROSA MARIA JUNQUERA, NEW 

LIFE CLINICAL SERVICES, INC, ALEAN 

MACHADO, JOSE ESTEVEZ, YOANDRA 

RODRIGUEZ, ACCIDENT REHAB 

ASSOCIATES INC, d/b/a AMERICAN 

MEDICAL & REHAB CENTER, ALEJANDRO 

VAZQUEZ, MARIA VAZQUEZ, ERICK 

SALADO, M.D., MIAMI MEDICAL GROUP, 

INC, JUAN JIMENEZ, GRACIELA JIMENEZ, 

JOSE MARQUEZ, M.D., MARIA NODARSE, 

D.C., YARA VAZQUEZ, and HAI UZAN,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND SUPPORTING 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

Plaintiffs, Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO General 

Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Co. (collectively “GEICO” or “Plaintiffs”), pursuant to 

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move for an Order striking the Answer of 

Defendants Accident Rehab Associates, Inc, d/b/a American Medical & Rehab Center, Alejandro 

Vazquez, Maria Vazquez, and Erick Salado M.D. (collectively the “Accident Rehab Defendants”)

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 1 of 12
2

(Docket No. 118), and entering Default against the Accident Rehab Defendants, due to their willful 

failure to comply with the Court’s December 7, 2020 and February 17, 2021 orders (the “Court 

Orders”) requiring the Accident Rehab Defendants to respond to GEICO’s First Set of 

Interrogatories and First Set of Document Requests (GEICO’s “Discovery Requests”). See Docket 

Nos. 93 and 105. In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant such relief 

as seems just and proper. 

The grounds and authority for this motion are set forth in the following memorandum. The 

memorandum is incorporated as part of this motion. 

MEMORANDUM

GEICO respectfully submits the following memorandum in support of its Motion for 

Discovery Sanctions. 

BACKGROUND

GEICO commenced this action on May 15, 2020 against the Accident Rehab Defendants, 

Manuel Feijoo, M.D., (“Feijoo”) Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D. P.A., (“Feijoo P.A.”), We Care Medical 

Services, Inc (“We Care”), Manuel Martinez Varela (“Martinez”), Tony Nguyen, D.O., 

(“Nguyen”), New Life Clinical Services, Inc (“New Life”), Alean Machado (“Machado”), Jose 

Estevez (“Estevez”), Yoandra Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), Miami Medical Group, Inc (“Miami 

Medical”), Juan Jimenez (“J. Jimenez”), Graciela Jimenez (“G. Jimenez”), Jose Marquez, M.D.

(Marquez”), Maria Nodarse, D.C (“Nodarse”) , Yara Vazquez (“Y. Vazquez”), and Hai Uzan 

(“Uzan”). See Docket No. 1.

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 2 of 12
3

GEICO filed an Amended Complaint against the Defendants on April 9, 2021. See Docket 

No. 111. Within GEICO’s Amended Complaint, the Twenty-Third1, Twenty-Fourth, TwentyFifth, Twenty-Sixth, Twenty-Seventh, Twenty-Eighth, Twenty-Ninth, and Thirtieth causes of 

action are asserted against the Accident Rehab Defendants, and seek damages in excess of 

$600,000.00, plus treble damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and court costs. 

See Id.

The Accident Rehab Defendants filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint on April 

27, 2021 See Docket No. 118.2

On October 27, 2020 GEICO served its Discovery Requests upon the Accident Rehab 

Defendants by electronic mail and United States mail. 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34, the Accident Rehab Defendants’ 

responses to GEICO’s Discovery Requests were due to be served on or before November 27, 2020.

However, despite GEICO serving its Discovery Requests more than six months ago, to date, the 

Accident Rehab Defendants have failed to serve any responses to GEICO’s Discovery Requests.

For the past five months – and in conjunction with the two Court Orders directing the 

Accident Rehab Defendants’ to respond to GEICO’s Discovery Requests – GEICO has made 

repeated good faith attempts to secure the Accident Rehab Defendants’ responses to GEICO’s 

Discovery Requests without resort to further judicial intervention, including a number of agreed-

 1 GEICO’s Twenty-Third Cause of action seeks a declaratory judgment against the Accident Rehab 

Defendants.

2 The Accident Rehab Defendants also filed an answer to GEICO’s original Complaint on August 

31, 2020. See Docket No. 55. To the extent that original answer is not mooted by the Amended 

Complaint and the Accident Rehab Defendants’ answer to the Amended Complaint, GEICO also 

seeks to strike the Accident Rehab Defendants’ original answer for the same reasons set forth 

herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 3 of 12
4

upon extensions. Even so, the Accident Rehab Defendants have failed to respond to any of

GEICO’s Discovery Requests.

First, on December 7, 2020, a proceeding was held before Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes

regarding, among other things, various of the Defendants’ motions to stay discovery. Judge OtazoReyes denied all these motions, and also ordered that all Defendants – including the Accident 

Rehab Defendants – respond to GEICO’s Discovery Requests within 30 days (the “First Order”). 

See Docket No. 93. 

The Accident Rehab Defendants failed to provide any responses – let alone full and 

complete responses – to GEICO’s Discovery Requests by January 6, 2021, the last day of the 30

day period set forth in Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’s First Order. Thereafter, GEICO made 

several additional, good faith attempts to secure the Accident Rehab Defendants’ responses to 

GEICO’s Discovery Requests without resort to judicial intervention.

For example, on January 7, 2021 and January 8, 2021 GEICO’s counsel corresponded with 

the Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel (“Ron D’Anna”) via electronic mail and requested that 

the Accident Rehab Defendants respond to GEICO’s Discovery Requests. On January 8th, 2021, 

Mr. D’Anna responded and requested an additional seven days to respond to GEICO’s Discovery 

Requests – until January 15, 2021. GEICO’s counsel consented to this request.3

On January 15, 2021, GEICO’s counsel and the Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel 

spoke via phone, during which the Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel requested an additional 

 3 Mr. D’Anna also contended– incorrectly – that GEICO did not properly serve discovery because 

it mailed the First Set of Discovery Requests to Mr. D’Anna’s old address – the address that Mr. 

D’Anna erroneously listed on the Docket. GEICO advised Mr. D’Anna that his contention that he 

was not properly served with discovery was incorrect, because in addition to mailing its First Set 

of Discovery Requests, GEICO also served its Discovery Requests to Mr. D’Anna – a registered 

electronic filer – via e-mail to his registered e-mail address in accordance with Local Rule 5.1(e). 

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 4 of 12
5

five days to respond to GEICO’s Discovery Requests – until January 20, 2021 – and also requested 

an additional copy of GEICO’s Discovery Requests to be sent to him via e-mail. GEICO once 

again consented to this additional five day extension and also e-mailed the Accident Rehab 

Defendants’ counsel an additional copy of its Discovery Requests at the Accident Rehab 

Defendants’ counsel’s request.

The Accident Rehab Defendants failed to respond to any of GEICO’s Discovery Requests

on January 20 as they indicated they would do. Thereafter, on numerous occasions within the 

subsequent few weeks, including on January 21, 2021, February 1, 2021, February 5, 2021, and 

February 8, 2021, GEICO’s counsel e-mailed and called the Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel 

in an attempt to obtain a response to GEICO’s Discovery Requests. The Accident Rehab 

Defendants’ counsel did not respond in any manner to GEICO’s counsel e-mails or phone calls. 

On February 8, 2021, GEICO’s counsel e-mailed the Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel 

a copy of a Notice of Hearing – pursuant to Judge Otazo-Reyes’s discovery procedures – it 

intended to file with the Court in light of the fact the Accident Rehab Defendants still had not 

responded to GEICO’s First Set of Discovery Requests. In this Notice of Hearing, GEICO 

requested that it be heard to bring up the discovery-related issues it was having with the Accident 

Rehab Defendants at an already scheduled February 17th hearing where Judge Otazo-Reyes was 

scheduled to hear arguments on a different matter. The Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel did 

not respond to this e-mail, so on February 9, 2021, GEICO filed the Notice of Hearing with the 

Court. See Docket No. 100. 

Finally, on February 16, 2021, Mr. D’Anna called GEICO’s counsel and advised GEICO’s 

counsel that he was sick in late January. That same day Mr. D’Anna also filed a document with 

the Court, admitting to the Court that the Accident Rehab Defendants had failed to timely respond 

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 5 of 12
6

to GEICO’s Discovery Requests. See Docket No. 103, p.2. However, Mr. D’Anna also represented 

to the Court that beginning on January 20, 2021, he became sick and that his symptoms lasted 

three weeks, and therefore requested an additional 14 day extension to respond to GEICO’s 

Discovery Requests.

4 Id. at p.3.

The next day, on February 17, 2021, a second proceeding was held before Magistrate Judge 

Otazo-Reyes. At this proceeding, Judge Otazo-Reyes once again directed the Accident Rehab 

Defendants to fully respond and produce responsive documents to GEICO’s Discovery Requests

within 14 days (the “Second Order”). See Docket No. 105. 

The Accident Rehab Defendants failed to provide any responses – let alone full and 

complete responses – to GEICO’s First Set Discovery Requests by March 3, 2021, the last day of 

the 14 day period set forth in Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Second Order.

Thereafter, on numerous occasions, including on March 5, 2021, March 8, 2021, March 9, 

2021, and March 11, 2021, GEICO’s counsel e-mailed and called the Accident Rehab Defendants’ 

counsel to procure responses to GEICO’s Discovery Requests. The Accident Rehab Defendants’ 

counsel did not respond to any of GEICO’s counsel e-mails nor did the Accident Rehab 

Defendants’ counsel return any of GEICO’s counsel’s phone calls.

Finally, on March 15, 2021, the Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel e-mailed GEICO’s 

counsel and requested to speak via phone to discuss the Accident Rehab Defendants’ failure to 

respond to GEICO’s Discovery Requests. On March 18, 2021, GEICO’s counsel and the Accident 

Rehab Defendants’ counsel spoke via phone, whereupon the Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel 

 4 It is unclear – and Mr. D’Anna never provided any reason – why Accident Rehab failed to respond 

to any of GEICO’s First Set of Discovery Requests in the two months prior to January 20th, before 

Mr. D’Anna became sick, but when Accident Rehab was still due to respond to GEICO’s First Set 

of Discovery Requests.

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 6 of 12
7

requested an additional ten days to respond to GEICO’s Discovery Requests. GEICO – hoping to 

avoid having to file further discovery motions with the Court and also in an attempt to work with 

the Accident Rehab Defendants – consented to this request.

Thereafter, on April 12th, after still not receiving any discovery responses from the 

Accident Rehab Defendants, GEICO’s counsel followed up with the Accident Rehab Defendants’ 

counsel, requested that the Accident Rehab Defendants produce their outstanding discovery by the 

end of the day, and advised the Accident Rehab Defendants’ counsel that GEICO would no longer 

consent to any more requests for extensions. Even so, the Accident Rehab Defendants did not 

produce the outstanding discovery by April 12th, or otherwise respond to this correspondence.5

At bottom, and to date, the Accident Rehab Defendants have failed to respond to GEICO’s 

Discovery Requests at all, and have also failed to abide by Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ 

December 7, 2020 and February 7, 2021 Orders directing them to fully and completely respond to 

GEICO’s Discovery Requests 

ARGUMENT 

A. The Standard on a Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), “[i]f a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide 

or permit discovery . . . the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They 

may include the following: . . . (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; . . . (vi) rendering a 

default judgment against the disobedient party”. Rule 37(b) “gives district judges broad discretion 

 5 GEICO did not immediately move to strike the Accident Rehab Defendants’ answer at that time, 

since the Accident Rehab Defendants had yet to file an answer to GEICO’s amended complaint, 

and had only filed an answer to GEICO’s original complaint, which had been rendered moot in 

light of the amended complaint being filed. 

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 7 of 12
8

to fashion appropriate sanctions for violation of discovery orders”. Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 

Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993). 

Furthermore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d), “[t]he court where the action is pending 

may, on motion, order sanctions if: . . . (ii) a party, after being properly serviced with 

interrogatories . . . or a request for inspection . . . fails to serve its answers, objections, or written 

response.” Sanctions for failing to answer, object or provide written responses to interrogatories 

may include striking a pleading and rendering a default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). 

Entering a default judgment is a proper Rule 37 sanction when a party willfully or in bad 

faith fails to obey a discovery order. See Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1542 (citing Societe Internationale 

pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 212 (1958)). Although 

default judgement is a severe sanction, the Supreme Court has “expressed the need for a strict 

adherence to Rule 37 so as to prevent parties from flouting discovery orders.” Buchanan v. 

Bowman 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987)(citing National Hockey League v. Metropolitan 

Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1975)). Accordingly, “it is appropriate to strike pleadings and 

enter default judgment against parties who violate discovery orders.” U.S. v. One 1999 Forty 

Seven Foot Fountain Motor Vessel, 240 F.R.D. 695, 698 (S.D.Fla. 2007)(citing Adolph Coors Co. 

v. Movement Against Racism, 777 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir.1985)). 

The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that sanctions serve the following purposes: “1) 

compensating the court and other parties for the added expense caused by the abusive conduct; 2) 

compelling discovery; 3) deterring others from engaging in similar conduct; and 4) penalizing the 

guilty party or attorney.” Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 775 F.2d 1440, 1453 (11th Cir. 1985); 

see also Securities and Exchange Com’n v. Lauer, 2006 WL 2457671

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 8 of 12
9

In order for a court to strike a pleading and issue a default judgment, it must find that the 

violation of the discover order was the result of willful or bad faith noncompliance, prejudice by 

the disobedient party, and that there is no adequate available lesser sanction. See Allstate Ins. Co. 

v. Palterovich, 2008 WL 2741119 at *1 (S.D. Fla. 2007). 

B. The Accident Rehab Defendants’ Answer Should Be Stricken and Default Judgement 

Should be Entered Against Them. 

By failing to provide any responses to GEICO’s Discovery Requests, the Accident Rehab 

Defendants have intentionally frustrated GEICO’s attempts to obtain discovery in this case over 

the course of over five months. Despite Plaintiffs’ constant requests for compliance, good faith 

efforts to accommodate the Accident Rehab Defendants, and two different Orders issued by 

Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes, the Accident Rehab Defendants have failed to provide even the 

most preliminary discovery in this matter. 

Presently, as it pertains to its case against the Accident Rehab Defendants, GEICO is in the 

same position as when it filed its original Complaint in May 2020 because the Accident Rehab 

Defendants have failed to provide any discovery or response to GEICO’s Discovery Requests. 

Unlike circumstances where a party has responded to discovery and provided incomplete 

responses, here, the Accident Rehab Defendants have not provided a single document or even any

reason why they have not been able to provide responses to GEICO’s Discovery Requests over 

the last five months. 

Although Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes issued two different Court Orders requiring the 

Accident Rehab Defendants to provide full and complete responses – with the most recent 

February 17th Order requiring the Accident Rehab to also produce responsive documents – to 

GEICO’s Discovery Requests, the Accident Rehab Defendants have completely ignored 

Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ directives. When Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes issued the two 

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 9 of 12
10

Court Orders, they “should be followed – it should not be viewed as an advisory opinion that one 

chooses to follow or not at his or her whim or convenience.” One 1999 Forty Seven Foot Fountain 

Motor Vessel, 240 F.R.D. at 699. However, the Accident Rehab Defendants did just that – ignored 

the two Court Orders at their own whim. The Accident Rehab Defendants have also taken 

advantage of GEICO’s willingness to repeatedly consent to their requests for discovery extensions 

when it is now clear the Accident Rehab Defendants never intended to actually respond to 

GEICO’s Discovery Requests.

The willful nature of the Accident Rehab Defendants’ disregard of two of Judge Otazao 

Reyes’s’ Orders is underscored by the fact that the Accident Rehab Defendants did not even 

partially respond to GEICO’s Discovery Requests. In fact, the Accident Rehab Defendants have

failed even to provide their Rule 26(a) disclosures.

The Accident Rehab Defendants’ purposeful failure to provide responses to GEICO’s 

Discovery Requests clearly prejudices GEICO. GEICO is unable to proceed with discovery or to 

collect any to support its claims. 

GEICO’s request to strike the Accident Rehab Defendants’ answer and enter default 

judgment against them is an appropriate sanction given the facts here. The Accident Rehab 

Defendants have totally flouted two of Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Orders. It seems clear that 

no lesser sanction is likely to secure the Accident Rehab Defendants’ compliance with their 

discovery obligations in this case. In this context, courts within this district – including this Court

in a highly analogous PIP and insurance fraud racketeering case – have stricken answers and 

entered default judgment for violating discovery orders. See Government Employees Ins. Co., et 

al. v. A&C Medical Center Services, Corp, et al., S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:18-cv-24198-JEM, at 

Docket No. 161; see also Buchanan, 820 F.2d 359 (affirming the district court’s decision to strike 

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 10 of 12
11

a defendants answer and enter default judgment against the defendant for failing to abide by the 

court’s oral order compelling discovery by failing to appear at a deposition, respond to 

interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and fail to make a reasonable offer to 

appear); One 1999 Forty Seven Foot Fountain Motor Vessel, 240 F.R.D. 695 (striking an answer 

against a defendant who failed to appear at a deposition after an order from the court compelling 

the defendant’s appearance); Brauchle v. Southern Sports Grill, Inc., 2008 WL 4753707 (striking 

the defendants’ answer and issuing a default judgment against defendants for failing violating 

numerous court orders, including order to attend depositions and pay monetary sanctions for 

failure to cooperate in discovery); Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2741119 (granting plaintiffs’ motion 

to strike defendant’s answer and enter default judgment); Tarino v. Los Delfines, Inc., 2015 WL 

3761903 (recommending that the district court strike a defendants pleading and enter default 

judgment for failure to respond to the court’s clear directive as the court has attempted to enforce 

discovery and is left with no alternative.)

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, GEICO respectfully requests that the Court enter an order 

striking the Accident Rehab Defendants Answer and entering default judgment against the 

Accident Rehab Defendants, and such further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. A 

proposed order is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”. 

LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

The undersigned counsel confirm that they have conferred in good faith with counsel for 

the Accident Rehab Defendants by both telephonic communication and electronic communication 

in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, but were unable to do so.

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 11 of 12
12

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kristen L. Wenger

Lindsey R. Trowell (FBN 678783)

John P. Marino (FBN 814539) 

Kristen Wenger (FBN 92136)

SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 

50 North Laura Street, Suite 2600

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Phone: (904) 598-6100

Facsimile: (904) 598-6204

ltrowell@sgrlaw.com

jmarino@sgrlaw.com

kwenger @sgrlaw.com

Yonatan Bernstein (pro hac vice)

RIVKIN RADLER LLP

926 RXR Plaza

Uniondale, New York 11550 

Phone (516) 357-3000

Facsimile (516) 357-3333

yonatan.bernstein@rivkin.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Government Employees 

Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO 

General Insurance Company, and GEICO 

Casualty Co.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 4, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will provide notice and a copy of this document to 

the counsel of record in this case. 

/s/ Kristen L. Wenger

Attorney

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 12 of 12