EXHIBIT C

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 1 of 41
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL 

DISTRICT, D/B/A/ MEMORIAL 

HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,

on its own behalf and on behalf of other 

similarly situated healthcare facilities,

Plaintiff,

ELAP SERVICES, LLC and GROUP & 

PENSION ADMINISTRATORS, INC.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 0:20-cv-61007-AHS

DEFENDANT ELAP SERVICES, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Defendant, ELAP Services, LLC, through 

undersigned counsel, responds to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production to Defendant ELAP 

Services, LLC (the “Requests”) served by Plaintiff, South Broward Hospital District d/b/a/ 

Memorial Healthcare System (“SBHD”).

OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

The following objections to the “Definitions and Instructions” accompanying the Requests 

are incorporated into each response to each Request set forth below as if fully set forth therein:

1. Defendant objects to the Definitions and Instructions accompanying the Requests 

to the extent that they seek to impose obligations different from those required by the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the applicable Local Rules, and governing law. This objection applies to the 

Instructions concerning, inter alia, the production of ESI, assertions of privilege, identification of 

lost/destroyed/missing documents, redaction/excerpting, the production of 

drafts/duplicates/versions of documents, and the identification of documents responsive to the 

Requests.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 2 of 41
2

2. Defendant objects to the Instructions and Definitions accompanying the Requests 

to the extent that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work 

product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity.

3. Defendant objects to each of the Definitions to the extent the Definition broadens 

the Requests to seek information that is not relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses.

4. Defendant objects to the definitions of “you,” “your,” “GPA,” “ELAP,” and 

“Defendants” insofar as they seek to impose an obligation to produce documents that are not 

within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant.

5. Defendant objects to the definitions of “document” because the same word is 

defined at least twice and in different ways. Defendant objects to the definitions of “document” or 

“documents” to the extent the definition conflicts with the ESI protocol negotiated by the parties 

or other agreements concerning the scope of the production between the parties. Defendant objects 

to the definition of “document” or “documents” insofar as it is defined to include text messages, 

SMS messages, and “chats.” Defendant objects to the definition of “document” or “documents” 

insofar as it purports to include drafts and other non-final versions of documents. Defendant 

objects to the definition of “document” or “documents” insofar as it purports to require production 

not merely of documents but “all other materials necessary to use or interpret” documents.

6. Defendant objects to the definition of “communication” or “communications” to 

the extent those words are defined to include a “computer-generated message,” including but not 

limited to text messages, SMS messages, “chats,” Slack messages, or other similar instant 

messaging applications.

7. Defendant objects to the definition of “Memorial” insofar as the definition includes 

not only Plaintiff, but also its “present and former officers, directors, principals, agents, employees, 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 3 of 41
3

accountants, attorneys, independent contractors, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliates, and 

their respective present and former officers, directors, principals, agents, employees, accountants, 

attorneys and independent contractors”—many, if not most, of whom are unknown to Defendant.

8. Defendant objects to the definitions of “MultiPlan,” “PHCS,” “SpringTide Health,” 

and “Affiliate” or Affiliates” insofar as they seek to impose an obligation to produce documents 

that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant and include persons, 

individuals, partnerships, associations, or other entities that are unknown to Defendant.

9. Defendant objects to the instructions concerning the redaction or excerpting of 

documents, and reserves its right to redact or exclude from its production any information that is, 

inter alia, not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, privileged in any manner, subject to 

protection by law, and/or a trade secret.

10. Defendant’s responses to these Requests are expressly made without waiving its 

defense of ERISA preemption.

11. Defendant’s investigation of this matter and discovery are ongoing. Defendant

reserves its right to supplement and/or amend its Responses to the Requests.

12. Unless otherwise agreed, Defendant’s production of documents will be limited to 

the Parties’ agreed upon timeframe of January 1, 2016 to the present.

13. Defendant’s production of any ESI will be made pursuant to the Parties’ ESI 

Protocol dated March 5, 2021.

14. Defendant’s production of any production of confidential information in response 

to the Requests will be made pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order. 

[D.E. 42, 43].

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 4 of 41
4

15. Defendant’s production of any production of Protected Health Information (“PHI”) 

will be made pursuant to a “HIPAA” order to be negotiated by the Parties and entered by the Court.

16. Given the significant volume of documents, data, and other information requested 

by Plaintiff, Defendant’s productions of responsive documents will be made on a rolling basis 

within an estimate timeframe to be provided once Defendant performed its search for and 

collection of potentially responsive, non-privileged documents as indicated.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

I. ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION

1. Documents sufficient to identify all of ELAP’s subsidiaries, affiliates, owners, 

shareholders, and officers.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is 

not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the 

information sought through this Request is more properly requested through an interrogatory rather 

than a request for production. Defendant objects to this Request because it seeks information that 

has changed several times over the course of nearly six years, making compliance with the Request 

overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it would 

be excessively time-consuming, if even possible, to locate documents containing the requested 

information.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged documents sufficient to identify Defendant’s current subsidiaries, 

affiliates, owners, shareholders, and officers.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 5 of 41
5

2. Any licenses, certificates, and/or credentials that ELAP holds.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, “credentials” can be defined in many ways to include very generic attributes or 

qualifications; however, it is unclear how Plaintiff intended to use the word “credentials.” 

Defendant is unaware of a technical or specialized meaning of “credentials” that would make the 

Request relevant to any party’s claims or defenses; therefore, Defendant objects to the Request 

because “credentials” makes the request overly broad, disproportionate to the needs of the case, 

and not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Use of the word “certificates” is also vague and 

ambiguous. Defendant interprets “certificates” to mean professional or business certifications; 

however, coupled with Plaintiff’s definition of ELAP to include “its present and former officers, 

directors, principals, agents, employees, accountants, attorneys, independent contractors, parents, 

subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliates, and their respective present and former officers, directors, 

principals, agents, employees, accountants, attorneys and independent contractors,” the Request is 

overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. The use of the 

word “licenses” is also vague and ambiguous. Defendant interprets it to mean business and other 

professional licenses held by the corporation ELAP Services, LLC.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce business and other 

professional licenses held by the Defendant. Defendant is not presently aware of any specific nonprivileged documents that are being withheld based on the foregoing objections because any such 

documents are beyond the scope of what it has agreed to search for and produce, but it is likely 

that there are non-privileged responsive documents that are withheld based on the foregoing 

objections.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 6 of 41
6

3. Documents sufficient to identify the relationship between ELAP and GPA.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, “relationship” could mean several things in many different contexts in this case. 

Defendant interprets this request to seek documents sufficient to identify the corporate relationship 

between ELAP and GPA.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce documents 

sufficient to identify the corporate relationship between ELAP and GPA.

4. Any regulatory submissions filed with the U.S. Department of Labor and/or any 

state insurance agency.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad, unduly 

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

to any party’s claims or defense. Specifically, the Request is not limited to regulatory submissions 

filed by ELAP or concerning ELAP. Similarly, the Request is not limited to any particular subject 

matter that might make the Request relevant to this case. Defendant also objects to the request 

because the phrase “regulatory submissions” is vague and ambiguous.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant is not required to make any 

regular or periodic submissions to the U.S. Department of Labor or any state insurance agency; 

therefore, Defendant is not in the possession, custody, or control of any such documents.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 7 of 41
7

II. CLAIMS DATA

5. Documents sufficient to identify all data points on the UB-04, the EDI 835, and the 

EDI 837 for each of the Claims.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because “Claims” is defined to include 

any facility claim Defendant “repriced, processed or reprocessed, and/or administered using 

Reference Based Pricing.” Defendant has audited more than one million claims. The Request 

appears to request the UB-04, EDI 835, and EDI 837 for every single claim audited by Defendant 

since May 1, 2015, if not all claims ever audited. The Request is not limited to claims incurred at 

SBHD facilities, within the state of Florida, or in any other way. Compliance with this Request 

would be prohibitively costly and time-consuming such that the Request is 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.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce any UB-04, EDI 

835, and EDI 837 in its possession, custody, or control for any facility claim incurred at SBHD 

facilities on or after January 1, 2016, that was audited, repriced, or otherwise adjudicated by 

Defendant (“SBHD Claims”). Additionally, Defendant is open to negotiating an agreement to 

produce a reasonable sample of UB-04, EDI 835, and EDI 837 documents related to facility claims 

incurred at non-SBHD facilities on or after January 1, 2016, that were audited, repriced, or 

otherwise adjudicated by Defendant (“Non-SBHD Claims”); however, Defendant will de-identify 

PHI contained in Non-SBHD Claims.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 8 of 41
8

6. Documents sufficient to identify any Claim that the Clients paid additional monies 

on after a healthcare provider appealed the Claim, including, but not limited to, all Claims that 

ELAP authorized the payment of additional monies on after a healthcare provider appealed the 

Claim.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Defendant interprets this Request to seek documents sufficient to identify any claim for which a 

health care provider filed a formal appeal with the health plan for additional payment, where such 

appeal was based on Defendant’s determination of the allowed amount, and Defendant determined 

that additional payment was appropriate pursuant to the health care provider’s appeal. Insofar as 

this Request seeks additional documents, Defendant objects to the request as vague and 

ambiguous, 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.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce documents

sufficient to identify any claim for which a health care provider filed a formal appeal with the 

health plan for additional payment, where such appeal was based on Defendant’s determination of 

the allowed amount, and Defendant determined that additional payment was appropriate pursuant 

to the health care provider’s appeal.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 9 of 41
9

III. AGREEMENTS

7. Any and all agreements between ELAP and the following: (a) GPA, (b) MultiPlan,

(c) PHCS, (d) SpringTide Health, (e) Clients, and (f) any law firm retained to defend any of the 

Clients or Members.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks drafts, non-final, or 

other unexecuted agreements. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents 

that are not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Defendant objects to this request to the 

extent it seeks agreements between Defendant and attorneys for the provision of legal services 

because such documents are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Defendant 

objects to this Request insofar as it seeks agreements with every client Defendant has had since 

January 1, 2016, regardless of whether the client is a current client and regardless of whether the 

client incurred any SBHD Claims; therefore, this Request is 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. Defendant objects to this requests as 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 because the definitions of Clients and Members include Defendant’s clients 

who have never incurred claims at SBHD facilities (“Clients Without SBHD Claims”) and health 

plan members who have never incurred claims at SBHD facilities (“Members Without SBHD 

Claims”).

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant is not in possession of any 

agreements between Defendant and PHCS or MultiPlan. Defendant will produce agreements 

between ELAP and GPA that were in effect after January 1, 2016 and govern the services provided 

to Clients. Defendant will produce agreements between Defendant and SpringTide Health that 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 10 of 41
10

were in effect after January 1, 2016, and govern the services provided to Clients. Defendant will 

produce agreements between Defendant and its clients whose members have incurred claims at 

SBHD (“Clients With SBHD Claims”). Defendant is open to negotiating production of a 

reasonable sample of agreements between Defendant and Clients Without SBHD Claims. 

Defendant will not produce and will instead withhold on the basis of attorney-client privilege 

agreements between Defendant and any law firm Defendant has paid to defend a Client or Member.

8. Documents sufficient to identify each healthcare provider who has an agreement 

with ELAP.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous. Specifically, 

“agreement” could mean a preferred provider type agreement that contains negotiated 

reimbursement rates. The contents of these types of agreements are typically confidential and 

prohibit disclosure; moreover, these agreements are not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. 

Alternatively, “agreement” could mean any type of agreement whatsoever between ELAP and any 

healthcare provider, including non-facilities, healthcare providers located anywhere in the country, 

agreements pertaining to any subject matter whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant objects to this 

Request because it is 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. Defendant further 

objects to the extent the Request seeks agreements containing PHI of Members Without SBHD 

Claims. Defendant is not permitted to disclose PHI of Patients Without SBHD Claims.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce any agreements 

found after reasonable search between Defendant and Plaintiff in effect after May 1, 2016; 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 11 of 41
11

however, pursuant to the objections noted above, Defendant will not produce agreements with 

healthcare providers other than Plaintiff.

IV. COMMUNICATIONS

9. All documents and communications between you and anyone, including, but not 

limited to, the Clients, the Members, GPA, SpringTide, MultiPlan, and/or PHCS related to the 

Claims.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is 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. The Request seeks all documents and communications related 

to the Claims, which is broadly defined as any claim ever repriced, processed or reprocessed, or 

administered by Defendant. This Request implicates all claims handled by Defendant anywhere in 

the country and further seeks every document and communication related to the claims. Producing 

every document and communication related to every single claim handled by Defendant would be 

prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that 

it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from disclosure by the attorneyclient privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. Defendant 

objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in anticipation 

of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged documents and communications in its possession, custody, or control 

related to SBHD Claims. Defendant is open to negotiating production of a reasonable sample of

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 12 of 41
12

documents and communications in its possession, custody, and control related to Non-SBHD 

Claims.

10. All documents and communications between you and anyone, including, but not 

limited to, the Clients, the Members, GPA, SpringTide, MultiPlan, and/or PHCS related to the 

MultiPlan or PHCS network.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected 

from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the commoninterest privilege. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prepared or 

created in anticipation of litigation. Additionally, the Request is not limited to documents or 

communications pertinent to the subject matter of the case or relevant to the claims or defenses of 

any party.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged documents and communications in its possession, custody, or control. 

Defendant is open to negotiating an agreed upon list of ESI search terms with Plaintiff for purposes 

of conducting the aforementioned search.

11. All documents and communications between you and anyone, including, but not 

limited to, the Members, GPA, SpringTide, MultiPlan, and/or PHCS related to the Clients.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is 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. Specifically, the Request is not limited to Clients With SBHD 

Claims. Additionally, the Request is not limited to documents or communications pertinent to the 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 13 of 41
13

subject matter of the case or relevant to the claims or defenses of any party. Defendant objects to 

this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest 

privilege. Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or 

prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged documents and communications related to Clients With SBHD Claims 

and subject matter at issue in this case. Defendant is not presently aware of any specific nonprivileged documents or communications related to Clients With SBHD Claims that are being 

withheld based on the foregoing objections because any such documents are beyond the scope of 

what it has agreed to search for and produce, but it is likely that there are non-privileged responsive 

documents that are withheld based on the foregoing objections. Defendant is open to negotiating 

production of a reasonable sample of documents and communications related to Clients Without 

SBHD Claims.

12. All internal communications referring or relating to (a) “Reference Based Pricing,”

(b) the Clients’ self-funded plan identification cards, (c) the “allowed amount,” and (d) obtaining 

elective services from healthcare providers.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is 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. Specifically, the Request is not limited to communications 

related to Clients With SBHD Claims, SBHD Claims, or Members With SBHD Claims. Moreover, 

all communications referring to relating to “allowed amounts” or “Reference Based Pricing” 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 14 of 41
14

would include all communications about auditing of claims, including Non-SBHD Claims, 

anywhere in the country. Similarly, communications referring or relating to obtaining elective 

services from healthcare providers would include all communications about claims other than 

emergency claims. The Request seeks information that is general or strategic, as well as claimspecific communications. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents 

and communications that may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, 

attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. Defendant objects to this 

Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in anticipation of litigation. 

Defendant objects to this Request because it is actually four separate, unrelated requests.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged, high-level communications concerning “Reference Based Pricing” 

and identification cards. Defendant is open to negotiating an agreed upon list of ESI search terms 

with Plaintiff for purposes of conducting the aforementioned search. Defendant is not presently 

aware of any specific non-privileged documents responsive to this request that are being withheld 

based on the foregoing objections because any such documents are beyond the scope of what it 

has agreed to search for and produce, but it is likely that there are non-privileged responsive 

documents that are withheld based on the foregoing objections.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 15 of 41
15

V. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

13. All policies, procedures, and guidelines relating to the following areas: (a) ELAP’s 

appeals processes, (b) the processing, payment, pricing, and/or repricing of the Claims, (c) 

processing, payment, pricing, and/or repricing of claims for physicians who participate in 

MultiPlan’s or PHCS’s network, (d) patient specific agreements, letters of agreement, single-case 

agreements, or such other agreements similar in form between ELAP and/or SpringTide and any 

healthcare provider for elective services, (e) the Clients and any healthcare provider for elective 

services, (f) the settlement of a payment dispute for claims submitted by any healthcare provider 

type, (g) ELAP’s authorization of medical services, (h) any calls, recordings, and/or verbal 

communications between ELAP and any healthcare provider, and/or (i) the Clients’ self-funded 

health plan identification cards.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeks 

information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Defendant objects to this request 

to the extent it seeks drafts, non-final versions, or unimplemented policies. Defendant objects to 

this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. Specifically, the Request is unclear as to whether 

it seeks official, implemented policies, procedures, and guidelines or whether it seeks any 

document whatsoever that could be construed as a statement of policy, procedure, or guideline. 

Because the latter request would be unreasonably burdensome and disproportionate to the needs 

of the case, Defendant construes this Request to seek official, implemented policies, procedures, 

and guidelines.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged, responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 16 of 41
16

VI. ADVERTISING AND MARKETING

14. Representative copies of advertising or marketing material you used or currently 

use to market or advertise your services to employers, self-funded health plans, Members, or 

prospective Members, including, but not limited to, brochures, catalogs, videos, power point 

presentations, and/or white papers.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks drafts or other nonfinal documents. Defendant objects to this Request because the definition of Members is overly 

broad. Defendant objects to the Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to any 

party’s claims or defenses.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged, representative copies of responsive documents in its possession, 

custody, or control.

15. Representative copies of advertising or marketing material related to (a) 

“Reference-Based Pricing,” (b) ELAP’s ability to save employers and self-funded health plans 

money by using “Reference-Based Pricing,” and/or (c) balance billing.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is duplicative of other Requests. 

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks drafts or other non-final documents. 

Defendant objects to the Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s 

claims or defenses.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged, representative copies of responsive documents in its possession, 

custody, or control.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 17 of 41
17

16. Any and all marketing studies and profitability studies referring to “ReferencedBased Pricing.”

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Defendant interprets “marketing studies” in the context of this Request to mean research 

concerning the effectiveness of advertising or marketing of Reference Based Pricing. Defendant 

interprets “profitability studies” in the context of this Request to mean research about the 

profitability of Reference Based Pricing generally. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent 

it seeks information concerning Defendant’s profitability because such information is not relevant 

to any party’s claims or defenses

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce any non-privileged, responsive documents, if they exist. Defendant is not presently 

aware of any specific non-privileged documents responsive to this request that are being withheld 

based on the foregoing objections, but it is likely that there are non-privileged responsive 

documents that are withheld based on the foregoing objections if the Request is intended to seek 

documents reflecting Defendant’s profitability.

17. Any and all agreements with marketing or advertising agencies.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not 

relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 

draft or other non-final documents.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 18 of 41
18

VII. SELF-FUNDED PLAN IDENTIFICATION CARDS

18. Representative copies of the Clients’ self-funded plan identification cards that refer 

to (a) ELAP, (b) GPA, and (c) “Reference-Based Pricing”.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeking

information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses because “Clients” is defined to 

include Clients Without SBHD Claims.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce copies of identification cards used by Clients With SBHD Claims that are within its 

possession, custody, or control. Such cards may or may not refer to ELAP, GPA, and/or Reference 

Based Pricing. Defendant understands that GPA is in possession of most or all the identification 

cards used by Members With SBHD Claims and that GPA intends to produce those. Defendant is 

willing to negotiate production of a reasonable sample of identification cards used by Clients 

Without SBHD Claims that are in its possession, custody, or control. Such cards may or may not 

refer to ELAP, GPA, and/or Reference Based Pricing. 

19. Representative copies of the Clients’ self-funded plan identification cards that have 

a MultiPlan and/or PHCS logo.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeking

information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses because “Clients” is defined to 

include Clients Without SBHD Claims.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce copies of identification cards used by Clients With SBHD Claims that are within its 

possession, custody, or control. Such cards may or may not contain a MultiPlan or PHCS logo. 

Defendant understands that GPA is in possession of most or all the identification cards used by 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 19 of 41
19

Members With SBHD Claims and that GPA intends to produce those. Defendant is willing to 

negotiate production of a reasonable sample of identification cards used by Clients Without SBHD 

Claims that are in its possession, custody, or control. Such cards may or may not contain a 

MultiPlan or PHCS logo. 

20. Documents sufficient to identify all versions of the Clients’ self-funded plan 

identification cards, including, but not limited to, when each version was released or updated.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is an interrogatory disguised a 

Request for Production. Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeking

information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses because “Clients” is defined to 

include Clients Without SBHD Claims.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce documents sufficient to identify all versions of the identification cards used by Clients 

With SBHD Claims to the extent that any such document exists and are in its possession, custody, 

or control.

21. Documents sufficient to identify all websites listed on the Clients’ self-funded plan 

identification cards, including, but not limited to, when each website was added to the self-funded 

plan identification card.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is an interrogatory disguised a 

Request for Production. Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeking

information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses because “Clients” is defined to 

include Clients Without SBHD Claims. Defendant objects to this Request because it is duplicative, 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 20 of 41
20

unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Specifically, Defendant and 

GPA will produce versions of identification cards used by Clients With SBHD Claims and 

Members with SBHD Claims in their possession, custody, or control, and will produce a 

reasonable sample of representative copies of identification cards used by Clients Without SBHD 

Claim in their possession, custody, or control. Those identification cards themselves will 

necessarily—and by definition of the Request—identify the websites listed thereon. Beyond 

production of the identification cards themselves, no further documents are necessary to identify 

the websites listed on those cards.

VIII. CALL LOGS AND SCRIPTS

22. Any and all documents and/or scripts ELAP used or currently uses during its calls 

and/or verbal communications with (a) any healthcare provider, (b) the Clients, and (c) the 

Members.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is 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. Defendant likely engages in hundreds of calls and verbal 

communications each day, and each call likely involves the use of one or more documents related 

to the subject matter of the phone call. Determining the particular documents used in connection 

with all calls or verbal communications made since May 1, 2015, is likely impossible, but, at a 

minimum, cost and time prohibitive. Defendant objects to the Request because it appears to be 

misusing the word “verbal” incorrectly. “Verbal” means in the form of words, whether written or 

spoken. This Request and Requests 23 and 24 appear to incorrectly use “verbal” in place of “oral,” 

which means spoken rather than written; accordingly, Defendant has interpreted this Request to 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 21 of 41
21

involve “oral communications.” If the Request intended to use the word “verbal” rather than “oral,” 

then the Request pertains to millions of additional written communications, making the Request 

even more broad, burdensome, and disproportionate. Defendant objects to this Request to the 

extent it seeks drafts or other non-final documents. Defendant objects to this Request because the 

definition of Clients and Members is overly broad. Defendant objects to the Request because it 

seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Defendant objects to this 

Request to the extent that it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest 

privilege. Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or 

prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce Standard Operating Procedures and scripts related to Defendant’s phone calls or oral

communications with healthcare providers, Clients, and Members. Defendant is not presently 

aware of any specific non-privileged documents responsive to this request that are being withheld 

based on the foregoing objections because any such documents are beyond the scope of what it 

has agreed to search for and produce, but it is likely that there are non-privileged responsive 

documents that are withheld based on the foregoing objections.

23. Documents sufficient to identify when ELAP began recording its calls and/or verbal 

communications with healthcare providers, Members, and/or its Clients.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request because it is an interrogatory disguised as 

a document request. Defendant objects to this Request because it is based on a false premise, i.e., 

Defendant records its calls and verbal communications with healthcare providers, Members, and 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 22 of 41
22

Clients. Defendant objects to the Request because it appears to be misusing the word “verbal” 

incorrectly. “Verbal” means in the form of words, whether written or spoken. This Request and 

Requests 22 and 24 appear to incorrectly use “verbal” in place of “oral,” which means spoken 

rather than written; accordingly, Defendant has interpreted this Request to involve “oral 

communications.” If the Request intended to use the word “verbal” rather than “oral,” then the 

Request is nonsensical insofar as it seeks to discover when Defendant began recording written 

communications.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and will produce any non-privileged documents that identify when Defendant began recording its 

calls and/or oral communications with healthcare providers, Members, and/or its Clients, to the 

extent that any such document exists and are in its possession, custody, or control.

24. All call logs or recording or any verbal communications regarding the Claims 

between you, and (a) any healthcare provider, (b) the Members, and (c) the Clients.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, the Request appears to contain one or more typographical or grammatical errors. 

Defendant objects to the Request because it appears to be misusing the word “verbal” incorrectly. 

“Verbal” means in the form of words, whether written or spoken. This Request and Requests 23 

and 24 appear to incorrectly use “verbal” in place of “oral,” which means spoken rather than 

written; accordingly, Defendant interprets this Request to seek call logs or recordings of oral 

communications. The Request is 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. The 

Request seeks to discover records of oral communications with all healthcare providers, Members, 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 23 of 41
23

and Clients rather than only SBHD facilities, Clients With SBHD Claims, and Members With 

SBHD Claims. To the extent the Request is intended to relate to “verbal” communications, it is 

even more broad, burdensome, and disproportionate. Defendant objects to this Request to the 

extent that it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from disclosure by the 

attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. 

Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in 

anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce any non-privileged documents, including recordings, of oral communications 

between Defendant and (1) SBHD, (2) Clients With SBHD Claims, and (3) Members With SBHD 

Claims. Defendant will not produce documents, including recordings, of oral communications 

between Defendant and (1) Non-SBHD facilities, (2) Clients Without SBHD Claims, or (3) 

Members Without SBHD Claims. Defendant is open to negotiating production of a reasonable 

sample of documents, including recordings, of oral communications between Defendant and (1) 

Non-SBHD facilities, (2) Clients Without SBHD Claims, or (3) Members Without SBHD Claims.

IX. OTHER COMPLAINTS

25. Documents sufficient to identify any complaints filed against ELAP wherein 

ELAP’s actions, practices, and/or methods were alleged to be unfair, unconscionable, and/or 

deceptive.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Defendant interprets “complaints,” as used in this Request, by adopting its technical, legal 

definition, i.e., the initial pleading that starts a civil action. Defendant objects to this Request 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 24 of 41
24

because it is overly broad and seeking information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or 

defenses. The request is not limited to actions, practices, and/or methods relevant to the subject 

matter of this case. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it falsely presumes Defendant 

engaged in actions, practices, and/or methods alleged in any complaints filed against it. Defendant 

objects to this Request as seeking pleadings that are publicly available and equally accessible to 

Plaintiff.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce complaints that 

allege ELAP engaged in unfair, unconscionable, and/or deceptive actions, practices, and/or 

methods.

26. Any and all complaints filed against ELAP with any state or federal agency, 

department, political subdivision, court of law, and/or municipality.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Defendant interprets “complaints,” as used in this Request, by adopting its technical, legal 

definition, i.e., the initial pleading that starts a civil action. Defendant objects to this Request 

because it is overly broad and seeking information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or 

defenses. The Request is not limited to complaints relevant to the subject matter of this case. 

Defendant objects to this request as seeking pleadings that are publicly available and equally 

accessible to Plaintiff.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce complaints filed 

against ELAP. Defendant is not presently aware of any specific non-privileged documents 

responsive to this request that are being withheld based on the foregoing objections because any 

such documents are beyond the scope of what it has agreed to search for and produce, but it is 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 25 of 41
25

likely that there are non-privileged responsive documents that are withheld based on the foregoing 

objections.

27. Documents sufficient to identify any informal or formal complaints against ELAP’s 

use of Referenced-Based Pricing.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Defendant interprets “informal or formal complaints” to mean any statement of dissatisfaction; 

however, this interpretation, which Defendant believes is the best interpretation in context of the 

Request, renders the Request overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs 

of the case. Defendant does not separately maintain or inventory statements of dissatisfaction; 

therefore, identifying and collecting any information or formal complaint would require the 

manual review of each and every one of Defendant’s files. Every instance of a hospital objecting 

to or disputing the allowable claim limit determined by Defendant could be construed as an 

informal or formal complaint against ELAP’s use of reference based pricing. All such statements 

of dissatisfaction are not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Defendant objects to this 

Request to the extent that it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest 

privilege. Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or 

prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce complaints, defined 

as the initial pleadings that start a civil action, against ELAP’s use of Reference Based Pricing. 

Defendant is not presently aware of any specific non-privileged documents responsive to this 

request that are being withheld based on the foregoing objections because any such documents are 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 26 of 41
26

beyond the scope of what it has agreed to search for and produce, but it is likely that there are nonprivileged responsive documents that are withheld based on the foregoing objections.

X. MISCELLANEOUS

28. The specific methodology, including supporting data or other documentation, used 

to set or determine the payment of the Claims, including calculation of patient responsibility 

amounts, and/or the “allowed amount.”

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, the phrase “including supporting data or other documentation” does not make sense 

in connection with the specific methodology used to determine payment of claims. Defendant does 

not understand to what “supporting data or other documents” the Request refers. Additionally, the 

Request is vague and ambiguous as to whether it seeks documents pertaining to each and every 

Claim or whether the Request seeks documents related to a more general methodology. Defendant 

objects to this Request because it appears to be an interrogatory disguised as a request for 

production. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 permits a party to serve a request for designated 

documents or electronically stored information or designated tangible things. A methodology is 

system of methods, rules, or procedures used for a particular purpose; a methodology is not a 

document, electronically stored information, or a tangible thing. While documents may evidence, 

describe, or reflect a methodology, the Request does not seek such documents. The Request seeks 

the methodology itself, which is appropriately sought through an interrogatory. Defendant objects 

to the Request because it appears to be based on a false premise. Specifically, Defendant does not 

calculate patient responsibility amounts; instead, Defendant calculates the allowable claim limits 

in accordance with the terms and requirements of the applicable plan documents. Defendant 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 27 of 41
27

objects to this request because it is overly board, unduly burdensome, disproportionate to the needs 

of the case, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses to the 

extent it seeks documents pertaining to every Claim.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce plan documents for 

Clients With SBHD Claims. The plan documents describe how Defendant determined the 

allowable claim limit and the manner in which patient responsibility amounts are calculated.

Defendant is open to negotiating production of a reasonable sample of plan documents for Clients 

Without SBHD Claims.

29. All documents regarding ELAP’s claim edit technology.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, the term “claim edit technology” is unclear. Defendant interprets “claim edit 

technology” to refer to the software Defendant uses when calculating the amount Medicare would 

pay in the geographic area, which makes claim edits based on Medicare coding and bundling rules.

Additionally, the word “regarding” is vague and ambiguous in that it could mean high level 

documents describing or explaining the claim edit technology or it could mean any document 

derived from Defendant’s claim edit technology. Defendant interprets the Request to seek high 

level documents describing or explaining the claim edit technology because the other interpretation 

would render the Request 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.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged, high level documents describing or explaining the software Defendant 

uses when calculating the amount Medicare would pay in the geographic area.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 28 of 41
28

30. All documents and communications regarding final settlements between ELAP or 

Clients, on the one hand, and any healthcare provider, on the other hand, regarding underpaid 

emergent or non-emergent claims.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because is it vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, the word “underpaid” is unclear. Occasionally, Defendant or its Clients will settle 

claims that were not underpaid for a variety of reasons: on the one hand, Defendant or its Clients 

will settle claims for which the provider demanded additional payment in excess of the plan’s 

allowable claim limit; on the other hand, Defendant or its clients occasionally settle claims that 

were underpaid due to inadvertent errors in claims processing or the submission of additional 

information during the appeals process. Defendant interprets “underpaid” to have the latter 

meaning because the former is inconsistent with Defendant’s usage and understanding of the word 

“underpaid.” Defendant objects to the Request because it seeks settlement agreements involving 

Defendant or its Clients with any healthcare provider in the country. Accordingly, it is 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. Defendant objects to the Request to the extent it 

seeks documents other than the final settlement agreements themselves, making the Request 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. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent 

that it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from disclosure by the attorneyclient privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. Defendant 

objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in anticipation 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 29 of 41
29

of litigation. To the extent the Request seeks final settlement agreements of Non-SBHD Claims, 

Defendant objects to the Request insofar as such final settlement agreements are confidential.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce any final settlement agreements involving SBHD Claims that were underpaid due to 

inadvertent errors in claims processing or the submission of additional information during the 

appeals process. Defendant is not presently aware of any specific non-privileged, non-confidential

final settlement agreements involving Non-SBHD Claims that were underpaid due to inadvertent 

errors in claims processing or the submission of additional information during the appeals process 

that are being withheld based on the foregoing objections because any such documents are beyond 

the scope of what it has agreed to search for and produce, but it is likely that there are nonprivileged responsive documents that are withheld based on the foregoing objections. Defendant 

is open to negotiating production of a reasonable sample final settlement agreements involving 

Non-SBHD Claims that were underpaid due to inadvertent errors in claims processing or the 

submission of additional information during the appeals process.

31. All documents relating to ELAP’s assumption of liability for any Claim for any

Client.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, the phrase “ELAP’s assumption of liability” is unclear. Defendant does not assume 

liability for payment of claims, making the Request nonsensical. Defendant objects to this Request 

because it is overly broad and seeking information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or 

defenses in that Claim and Client are not limited to SBHD Claims and Clients With SBHD Claims. 

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and communications that 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 30 of 41
30

may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, 

or the common interest privilege. Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks 

documents created or prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant is not in possession, custody, or 

control of any documents responsive to this Request because Defendant does not assume liability 

for payment of claims.

32. All documents regarding ELAP’s insurance policies, which cover, arise from,

and/or relate to ELAP’s assumption of liability for any Claim for any Client.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, the phrase “ELAP’s assumption of liability” is unclear. Defendant does not assume 

liability for payment of claims, making the Request nonsensical. Defendant objects to this Request 

because it is overly broad and seeking information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or 

defenses in that Claim and Client are not limited to SBHD Claims and Clients With SBHD Claims. 

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and communications that 

may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, 

or the common interest privilege. Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks 

documents created or prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant is not in possession, custody, or 

control of any documents responsive to this Request because Defendant does not assume liability 

for payment of claims.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 31 of 41
31

33. Complete copies of ELAP’s insurance policies (both primary and excess) for the 

past four (4) years, including ELAP’s current insurance policies.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as seeking information that is not relevant 

to any party’s claims or defenses.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce any insurance policies that may provide coverage for all or part of a possible judgment 

in this action or to indemnify or reimbursement for payments made to satisfy any judgment, to the 

extent they have not already been produced.

34. All documents relating to the percentage or number of adverse benefit 

determinations that ELAP overturned in each year, beginning on January 1, 2015, including the 

curricula vitae, credentials, and qualifications for any individual employed or contracted with 

ELAP that is responsible for making adverse benefit determination decisions. For purposes of this

request, “adverse benefit determinations” include underpayment claims by any healthcare 

provider.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is compound, consisting of two 

disparate and distinct requests. Defendant objects because each of the disparate and distinct 

requests are interrogatories disguised as Requests for Production. Defendant objects to the Request 

because it is 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 SBHD Claims. Defendant objects to the Request because it is vague and ambiguous 

insofar as it partially defines “adverse benefit determinations” as including “underpayment claims 

by any healthcare provider.” This partial definition is nonsensical. “Adverse benefit 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 32 of 41
32

determination” is defined by federal law. 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(m)(4). Defendant interprets the 

Request by reference to the definition supplied by federal law. Defendant objects to this Request 

to the extent that it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from disclosure 

by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. 

Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in 

anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce non-privileged documents that show the percentage or number of adverse benefit 

determinations that ELAP overturned in each year, beginning on January 1, 2015. Defendant is 

not presently aware of any specific non-privileged documents that are being withheld based on the 

foregoing objections because any such documents are beyond the scope of what it has agreed to 

search for and produce, but it is likely that there are non-privileged responsive documents that are 

withheld based on the foregoing objections.

35. All documents, policies, or communications relating to ELAP’s assisting Clients, 

Members, and/or patients in locating healthcare providers for emergent of non-emergent services.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous. Specifically, the 

Request is unclear in how it differentiates between “Members” and “patients.” In this context, 

Defendant interprets “Member” to mean a person eligible for benefits under a Client’s health plan 

that does not receive treatment and “patient” to mean a person eligible for benefits under a Client’s 

health plan that actually receives treatment. It is unclear why the Request would make such a 

distinction, but Defendant is unaware of any better interpretation. Additionally, the while the word 

“locating” unambiguously means “to determine or indicate the place, site, or limits of,” it is unclear 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 33 of 41
33

the relevance of such activity or even its prevalence. Defendant objects to the Request because it 

is 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 Clients With SBHD Claims and Members With SBHD Claims.

Subject to and without waiving any objections, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce any non-privileged documents, policies, or communications relating to ELAP’s 

assisting Clients With SBHD Claims or Members with SBHD Claims in locating healthcare 

providers for emergent or non-emergent services. Defendant is not presently aware of any specific 

non-privileged documents or communications that are being withheld based on the foregoing 

objections because any such documents are beyond the scope of what it has agreed to search for 

and produce, but it is likely that there are non-privileged responsive documents that are withheld 

based on the foregoing objections. Defendant is open to negotiating production of a reasonable 

sample of responsive documents related to Clients Without SBHD Claims and Members Without 

SBHD Claims.

36. All documents between ELAP and Clients or Members regarding Clients or 

Members seeking or obtaining a self-pay rates from any provider for non-emergent services.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous. Specifically, it 

is not clear what the Request means by a document between ELAP and Clients or Members. 

Defendant interprets the Request to seek documents exchanged between ELAP, on one hand, and 

Clients or Members, on the other. Defendant objects to the Request because it is 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 Members With 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 34 of 41
34

SBHD Claims and Clients With SBHD Claims. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent 

that it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from disclosure by the attorneyclient privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. Defendant 

objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in anticipation 

of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objections, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce any non-privileged documents exchanged between ELAP, on one hand, and Clients

With SBHD Claim or Members With SBHD Claims, on the other. Defendant is not presently aware 

of any specific non-privileged documents or communications that are being withheld based on the 

foregoing objections because any such documents are beyond the scope of what it has agreed to 

search for and produce, but it is likely that there are non-privileged responsive documents that are 

withheld based on the foregoing objections. Defendant is open to negotiating production of a

reasonable sample of documents exchanged between ELAP, on one hand, and Clients Without 

SBHD Claims or Members Without SBHD Claims, on the other.

37. All documents regarding any external or internal audits of ELAP that were 

conducted on or after January 1, 2015.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the Request because it is 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. The Request is vague and ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear 

what the Request means by “external or internal audits of ELAP.” Defendant interprets the Request 

to seek financial audits or audited financial statements of ELAP, which are not relevant to any 

party’s claims or defenses. It is likely that responsive documents are being withheld on the basis 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 35 of 41
35

of the foregoing objections. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents 

and communications that may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, 

attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. Defendant objects to this 

Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in anticipation of litigation.

38. Documents sufficient to identify how ELAP is paid by the Clients, including, but 

not limited to, ELAP’s revenue since January 1, 2015.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is really two disparate and 

distinct requests. First, the Request seeks to identify how Defendant is paid by its clients, then the 

Request seeks to determine the amount of Defendant’s revenue since January 1, 2015. Defendant 

objects to the Request because it is 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 Clients With SBHD Claims and insofar as it seeks Defendant’s 

revenue since January 1, 2015.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant has agreed to produce agreements 

between Defendant and Clients With SBHD Claims, which define how ELAP is paid by those 

Clients. Defendant has also indicated an openness to negotiating production of a reasonable sample

of agreements between Defendant and Clients Without SBHD Claims, which will show how ELAP 

is paid by those clients. Defendant will not produce documents sufficient to show its revenue since 

January 1, 2015.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 36 of 41
36

39. To the extent not included above, all documents, including communications, 

referred to in your Initial Rule 26 Disclosures.

RESPONSE: Defendant will produce the relevant non-privileged documents identified in 

its Initial Rule 26 Disclosures that it may use to oppose class certification and the merits of 

Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant will supplement its production as necessary following the final 

resolution of any motion for class certification.

40. All documents that you referred to or relied upon in answering Plaintiff’s First Set 

of Interrogatories to ELAP.

RESPONSE: Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories; therefore, 

Defendant cannot respond to this Request and reserves the right to identify any objections to this 

Request if Plaintiff serves Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to ELAP.

41. All documents and communications between you and any third party relating to 

this Action.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. 

Specifically, it is unclear what the Request means by “relating to this Action.” Defendant interprets 

this Request to seek documents and communications specifically referring to this Action, rather 

than any document or communication that has any relation to the subject matter of this Action. 

The latter interpretation would render the Request too non-specific as to constitute a valid request 

for production under Rule 34. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks 

documents and communications that may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 37 of 41
37

privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. Defendant objects to 

this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will conduct a reasonable search 

and produce any non-privileged documents specifically referring to this Action.

42. All documents and communications that support, show, or evidence any defense 

you assert or intend to assert in this action, including the Affirmative Defenses set forth in your 

Answer.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and 

disproportionate to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request because it is too nonspecific to constitute a valid request for production under Rule 34. Rule 34 requires request for 

production to “describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be 

inspected.” This Request is not drafted with any reasonable particularity, but rather impermissibly 

seeks to require Defendant to marshal all evidence supporting its defenses. Defendant objects to 

this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and communications that may be protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest 

privilege. Defendant objects to this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or 

prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant will produce the relevant nonprivileged documents that it may use to oppose class certification and the merits of Plaintiff’s 

claims. Defendant will supplement its production as necessary following the final resolution of 

any motion for class certification. Discovery is ongoing and Defendant expects to locate or obtain 

many additional documents during discovery that are responsive to this Request. To the extent 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 38 of 41
38

Defendant identifies responsive, non-privileged documents that it has not previously produced and 

has not been produced by another party that support its defenses, Defendant will produce such 

documents.

43. All documents and communications you intend to introduce into evidence, or upon 

which you intend to rely, at any hearing or trial in this Action.

RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request because it is premature and inconsistent 

with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks 

documents and communications that may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client 

privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or the common interest privilege. Defendant objects to 

this Request insofar as the request seeks documents created or prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Subject to and without waiving any objection, Defendant has not developed any intention 

with respect to which documents it will introduce into evidence or rely upon at any hearing or trial 

in this Action. Defendant will disclose such documents in accordance with the Rule of Civil 

Procedure, applicable Local Rules, and any applicable orders of the Court.

Dated: March 19, 2021

FISHERBROYLES, LLP

/s/ Irene Oria

Robert T. Wright, Jr., Esq.

FL Bar No. 185525

Irene Oria, Esq.

FL Bar No. 484570

199 E. Flagler St. #550

Miami, FL 33131

Tel.: (305) 536-2838

Fax: (305) 536-2838

robert.wright@fisherbroyles.com

irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com

AKERMAN LLP

Irene Bassel Frick, Esq.

FL Bar No. 0158739

Gera R. Peoples, Esq.

FL Bar No. 450022

401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1700

Tampa, FL 33602-5250

Phone: (813) 223-7333

Fax: (813) 223-2837

irene.basselfrick@akerman.com

gera.peoples@akerman.com

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 39 of 41
39

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

GA Bar No. 821303; PA Bar No. 306672

Kris Alderman, Esq. (pro hac vice)

GA Bar No. 179645

945 East Paces Ferry Rd NE, Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA 30326

Tel.: (404) 793-0652

patrick.emery@fisherbroyles.com

kris.alderman@fisherbroyles.com

Counsel for Defendants ELAP Services, LLC and Group & Pension Administrators, Inc.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 40 of 41
40

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 19, 2021, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be emailed to 

all counsel of record, including counsel for Plaintiff identified on the Service List below. 

/s/ Irene Oria

Irene Oria, Esq.

SERVICE LIST

KOZYAK TROPIN &

THROCKMORTON LLP

Gail McQuilkin, Esq.

Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.

Benjamin Jacobs Widlanski, Esq.

Eric S. Kay, Esq.

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 372-1800

Facsimile: (305) 372-3508

gam@kttlaw.com

tjl@kttlaw.com

bwidlanski@kttlaw.com

ekay@kttlaw.com

WOLFE | PINCAVAGE

Douglas A. Wolfe, Esq.

Danya J. Pincavage, Esq.

Omar Ali-Shamaa, Esq.

2937 SW 27th Ave., Suite 302

Miami, FL 33133

Telephone: (786) 409-0800

doug@wolfepincavage.com

danya@wolfepincavage.com

omar@wolfepincavage.com

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 52-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2021 Page 41 of 41