EXHIBIT G

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 1 of 5
ATLANTA  AUSTIN  BOSTON  CHARLOTTE  CHICAGO  CINCINNATI  CLEVELAND  COLUMBUS  DALLAS  DETROIT

HOUSTON  LOS ANGELES  NAPLES  NEW YORK  PALO ALTO  PHILADELPHIA  PRINCETON  SEATTLE  WASHINGTON D.C.

Patrick M. Emery 1

Partner

945 East Paces Ferry Rd.

Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA 30326

Direct: (404) 793‐0652

patrick.emery@fisherbroyles.com

www.FisherBroyles.com  

April 21, 2021 

Via Email 

Tal. J. Lifshitz, Esq. 

Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq. 

Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. 

Eric S. Kay, Esq. 

Frank Florio, Esq. 

Douglas A. Wolfe, Esq. 

Danya J. Pincavage, Esq. 

Omar Ali-Shamaa, Esq. 

RE: South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Healthcare System v. ELAP Services, 

LLC and Group & Pension Administrators, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-61007-AHS (S.D. 

Fla.) – April 7, 2021 Meet and Confer re Plaintiff’s Document Requests

Dear Counsel, 

We write in response to your letter dated April 14, 2021 concerning the meet-and-confer call held 

among the Parties’ counsel on April 7, 2021 regarding Plaintiff’s First Sets of Document Requests 

(“RFP No. [#]”) to Defendants ELAP Services, LLP (“ELAP”) and Group & Pension 

Administrators, Inc. (“GPA”) (collectively, “Defendants”). For ease of reference, we respond to 

the items raised in your letter in roughly the same order of appearance. Please let us know if you 

wish to have a call to discuss any of these items further.1

I. Status of Defendants’ Productions 

As we stated during our call, Defendants have already collected over 400,000 potentially 

responsive documents. Defendants anticipate making their first production of documents on or 

before April 23, 2021, which we anticipate will include UB-04 claim data, UB-04 claims forms, 

explanations of benefits, agreements with health plans, ID cards, and plan documents. We are still 

on track to make that production goal, though a minor delay is always possible for any production. 

Defendants have been collecting marketing materials, and will endeavor to prioritize the 

production of those records as Plaintiff requested during our call. We estimate that Defendants will 

1

 By engaging in this and any other discovery, Defendants do not waive and reserve all defenses 

they may have, including that Plaintiff’s claims are preempted by ERISA. Defendants do not 

concede any of the contentions concerning the merits in your letter and reserve all defenses they 

have. 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 2 of 5
 Page 2 of 4 

ATLANTA  AUSTIN  BOSTON  CHARLOTTE  CHICAGO  CINCINNATI  CLEVELAND  COLUMBUS  DALLAS 

DETROIT  HOUSTON  LOS ANGELES  NAPLES  NEW YORK  PALO ALTO  PHILADELPHIA  PRINCETON  SEATTLE

WASHINGTON D.C

produce the representative marketing materials they agreed to disclose on or before May 7, 2021. 

II. Claims at Issue 

The top paragraph on page 2 of your letter does not accurately reflect the discussion among counsel 

during our call. Not all of the reimbursement claims submitted by a healthcare facility and that 

were audited by ELAP are “at issue.” For example, while Defendants can identify the 

reimbursement claims that were submitted by Plaintiff and audited by ELAP, they cannot know 

which of those claims are “at issue” until Plaintiff identifies the reimbursement claims for which 

it seeks additional reimbursement through this lawsuit. As indicated during our call, Defendants 

are willing to produce documents concerning each reimbursement claim Plaintiff submitted and 

ELAP audited during the relevant time period, but will do so only after Plaintiff identifies the 

claims it currently believes are at issue. Plaintiff’s knowledge and opinions of the claims it 

contends are “at issue” constitute material facts in this action. 

Your statement that Defendants are waiting to search for documents concerning Plaintiff’s 

potential claims until they receive Plaintiff’s claims list is incorrect. As we stated during our call, 

Defendants had already searched for potentially relevant reimbursement claims, but cannot 

complete their search until they have Plaintiff’s claims list. Now that we have Plaintiff’s claims 

list, Defendants can search for any additional relevant records. 

III. Audits 

We appreciate your clarification that RFP No. 37 to ELAP and RFP No. 38 to GPA seek copies of 

the audit reports generated by ELAP concerning facility reimbursement claims (the “Audits”). 

With that clarification, Defendants object to those Requests because they are overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and seeking information that is not relevant 

to any party’s claims or defenses insofar as the Request is not limited to Audits of SBHD Claims. 

Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will conduct a reasonable search and 

produce Audits of SBHD Claims. Although Defendants will not agree to produce all Audits for 

Non-SBHD Claims, Defendants are open to negotiating the production of a reasonable sample of 

Audits of Non-SBHD Claims. 

Defendants have been collecting the Audits and various other records concerning the 

reimbursement claims issued by Plaintiff. They will collect additional records if Plaintiff’s claims 

list identifies additional reimbursement claims during the relevant time period of which 

Defendants were not aware. The Audits will be produced along with other claim-related records. 

Defendants are still collecting these claim-related records and estimate the collection will be 

complete on or before May 28, 2021. 

IV. A Sample Of Non-party Healthcare Reimbursement Claims 

This section of your letter misrepresents Defendants’ position and misstates our discussion during 

the call. Among other errors in your letter, Defendants have never refused to produce all records 

concerning their interactions with putative class members. The suggestion that a sample of such 

records was “Memorial’s” idea is false. Time and again – in their initial disclosures, during our 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 3 of 5
 Page 3 of 4 

ATLANTA  AUSTIN  BOSTON  CHARLOTTE  CHICAGO  CINCINNATI  CLEVELAND  COLUMBUS  DALLAS 

DETROIT  HOUSTON  LOS ANGELES  NAPLES  NEW YORK  PALO ALTO  PHILADELPHIA  PRINCETON  SEATTLE

WASHINGTON D.C

prior calls, and in their responses to many of Plaintiff’s Document Requests – Defendants have 

indicated their willingness to negotiate the production of a reasonable sample of records relating 

to the reimbursement claims of putative class members. During our call, we reiterated this position, 

and invited Plaintiff to propose a sample for Defendants’ consideration. You indicated that 

Plaintiff would like to see a list of every data point for every reimbursement claim during the 

relevant time frame. That request is unreasonable because, inter alia, Plaintiff does not need 

comprehensive data on every reimbursement claim to design a sample, and Plaintiff entitled to 

obtain full-blown merits discovery concerning all putative class member claims prior to the 

certification of a class. 

Your letter indicates that you would like Defendants to propose a sample. However, as discussed 

during our call, Plaintiff has the burden of proving its claims and class allegations, and it is not 

Defendants’ job to develop a reasonable sample for Plaintiff. Instead, Defendants will review and 

accept or offer counterproposals to whatever Plaintiff suggests. We look forward to discussing this 

issue with you further during our call that is scheduled for tomorrow, April 22, 2021. 

V. Defendants’ Responses To The Document Requests Identified In Your Letter 

Defendants incorporate herein their objections and responses to the Document Requests discussed 

in your letter. 

RFP No. 1: Defendants estimate that they will produce the non-privileged document(s) 

responsive to this request that they indicated they would produce by May 7, 2021. 

RFP No. 6: Defendants estimate that they will produce the non-privileged document(s) 

responsive to this request that they indicated they would produce by May 7, 2021. 

RFP No. 9: Defendants are in the process of searching for and collecting the non-privileged 

documents responsive to this request that they indicated they would produce. Some documents 

concerning SBHD Claims can be collected from databases, and the collection of those documents 

has been in process. Other potentially responsive ESI will be located in custodial files using search 

terms negotiated by the Parties. We will provide a production estimate at the earliest opportunity. 

RFP No. 10: Your recap of our discussions of search terms and custodians is inaccurate. During 

our call, both sides agreed that they would exchange ideas about how to select custodians and 

develop search terms by April 9, 2021. Neither side was expected to provide names of custodians 

or search terms by April 9, 2021, and neither side did so. Nevertheless, we look forward to 

discussing these issues with you during our call tomorrow. 

RFP No. 11: See RFP No. 9 above. 

RFP No. 12: It is not clear from your letter what you are asking. We will discuss this request 

with you further during our call tomorrow. 

RFP No. 13: See Section I above. 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 4 of 5
 Page 4 of 4 

ATLANTA  AUSTIN  BOSTON  CHARLOTTE  CHICAGO  CINCINNATI  CLEVELAND  COLUMBUS  DALLAS 

DETROIT  HOUSTON  LOS ANGELES  NAPLES  NEW YORK  PALO ALTO  PHILADELPHIA  PRINCETON  SEATTLE

WASHINGTON D.C

RFP Nos. 14 and 17: See Section I above.

RFP No. 16: We indicated in our call that any “profitability studies” are totally irrelevant to 

Plaintiff’s claims. You have failed to explain why any “profitability studies,” if they exist, would 

be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. As indicated in their response, Defendants do not agree to produce 

any profitability studies. 

RFP Nos. 18, 19, and 20: Defendants intend to produce relevant ID Cards as indicated in 

Section I above. 

During our call, you indicated that Plaintiff also wants one copy of each version of the ID cards 

for a sample, instead of one copy of each card for each plan. We indicated that we do not know 

whether there is a template for ID cards and do not know if there is a document that identifies each 

version of each ID card, such that we do not know if it is possible to identify and produce one copy 

of each version of the ID cards, and would report back on those items. Upon investigation, there 

is no practical way to concisely provide the universe of possible formats for ID cards used by 

ELAP plans.

Contrary to your letter, Plaintiff did not request and Defendants did not agree to produce “a sample 

of five self-funded plan identification cards.” It also is unclear what that would mean. Are you 

now asking Defendants to produce only five examples of plan identification cards, or are you now 

asking Defendants to produce five ID cards for each plan? Please clarify during our call tomorrow. 

RFP No. 21: Defendants stand by their position with respect to this request. You say Plaintiff 

wants to know whether any websites referenced on any ID cards have changed over time. 

However, as you recognize, RFP No. 21 did not ask for that information and Plaintiff had not yet 

served a request for that information. Defendants will respond appropriately to any requests that 

information.

We look forward to discussing these issues with you further.

Very truly yours, 

/s/ Patrick M. Emery 

Patrick M. Emery, Esq. 

Partner 

CC via email: Kris Alderman, Esq. 

Irene Oria, Esq. 

 Robert Wright, Esq. 

 Irene Bassel-Frick, Esq. 

Gera R. Peoples, Esq. 

 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 5 of 5