EXHIBIT D

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2021 Page 1 of 8
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

______________________________________________________________________________

DEFEENDANT GPA’s RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES

______________________________________________________________________________

Robert T. Wright, Jr., Esq.

FL Bar No. 185525

Irene Oria, Esq.

FL Bar No. 484570

FisherBroyles, LLP

199 E. Flagler St. #550

Miami, FL 33131

Tel.: (305) 536-2838

Facsimile: (305) 536-2838

Email: robert.wright@fisherbroyles.com

irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com

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

FisherBroyles, LLP

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 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2021 Page 2 of 8
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, Defendant, Group & Pension 

Administrators, Inc., through undersigned counsel, responds to Plaintiff’s Second Set of 

Interrogatories to Defendant Group & Pension Administrators, Inc. (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.

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” insofar as it seeks to impose an obligation to 

produce documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant.

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

of ERISA preemption.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2021 Page 3 of 8
6. Defendant’s investigation of this matter and discovery are ongoing. Defendant reserves its 

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

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

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

8. Defendant’s production of any ESI will be made pursuant to the Parties’ ESI Protocol dated 

March 5, 2021.

9. 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].

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 13: Please identify the amounts of any fees and/or revenues received by You, 

including the source of such fees and/or revenues, in connection with each Claim. Identify the fees 

and/or revenues on a per-Claim basis beginning January 1, 2016.

Response: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. First, it is 

unclear what, if any, difference there are in “fees” and “revenues” in this context. Accordingly, 

Defendant interprets those words to mean the same thing in the context of this Request. Second, 

it is unclear whether the Request seeks to discover any fees received by Defendant or only 

incremental or variable fees received because a Claim was incurred. Defendant interprets this 

Request to seek only information about incremental or variable fees received because a Claim 

was incurred. In other words, flat fees or per employee per month (PEPM) fees are not included 

in this Request. Defendant objects because the Request is overly broad, seeks information that is 

not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and is disproportionate to the needs of the case at 

this juncture, when no proposed class has been certified, in that it seeks fees received in 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2021 Page 4 of 8
connection with all Claims, rather than only Claims incurred at SBHD facilities and a reasonable 

sample of Claims incurred at non-SBHD facilities. Defendant objects to identifying all claimspecific information for all Claims, let alone fees received in connection with all Claims. 

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

claims or defenses and is disproportionate to the needs of the case. Specifically, according to the 

Court, the benefits Plaintiff allegedly conferred on Defendants was “providing ELAP plan 

members with medical services at a discounted rate pursuant to the MultiPlan contract” and 

“providing treatments to patients with ELAP plans for which Defendants are legally obligated to 

provide and pay.” (Doc. 37, at p. 17.) While those allegations are factually inaccurate, that is the 

unjust enrichment claim that the Court permitted to go forward, and it has nothing to do with fees 

paid to Defendant by its clients. Plaintiff has no legal right to recover any amounts paid to 

Defendant by its clients, and the amounts Defendant was paid by its clients are not relevant to 

any party’s claims or defenses. Because information about the amounts Defendant was paid by 

its clients is not relevant or discoverable, no response will be provided to this Request.

Interrogatory No. 14: Please identify any reports available to determine the fees and/or revenues 

received by You, including the source of such fees and revenues, in connection with each Claim. 

Please also identify the systems or databases available to You to retrieve such reports.

Response: Defendant objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. First, it is 

unclear what, if any, difference there are in “fees” and “revenues” in this context. Accordingly, 

Defendant interprets those words to mean the same thing in the context of this Request. Second, 

it is unclear whether the Request seeks to discover any fees received by Defendant or only 

incremental or variable fees received because a Claim was incurred. Defendant interprets this 

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2021 Page 5 of 8
Request to seek only information about incremental or variable fees received because a Claim 

was incurred. In other words, flat fees or per employee per month (PEPM) fees are not included 

in this Request. Defendant objects because the Request is overly broad, seeks information that is 

not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and is disproportionate to the needs of the case at 

this juncture, when no proposed class has been certified, in that it seeks fees received in 

connection with all Claims, rather than only Claims incurred at SBHD facilities and a reasonable 

sample of Claims incurred at non-SBHD facilities. Defendant objects to identifying all claimspecific information for all Claims, let alone fees received in connection with all Claims. 

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

claims or defenses, and is disproportionate to the needs of the case. Specifically, according to the 

Court, the benefits Plaintiff allegedly conferred on Defendants was “providing ELAP plan 

members with medical services at a discounted rate pursuant to the MultiPlan contract” and 

“providing treatments to patients with ELAP plans for which Defendants are legally obligated to 

provide and pay.” (Doc. 37, at p. 17.) While those allegations are factually inaccurate, that is the 

unjust enrichment claim that the Court permitted to go forward, and it has nothing to do with fees 

paid to Defendant by its clients. Plaintiff has no legal right to recover any amounts paid to 

Defendant by its clients, and the amounts Defendant was paid by its clients are not relevant to 

any party’s claims or defenses. To the extent that this Request is aimed at determining the 

systems and system capabilities to generate reports that yield the information sought in 

Interrogatory No. 13, the systems capabilities of Defendant are irrelevant because Defendant 

does not object based on impossibility or undue burden. Instead, information about fees 

Defendant has been paid by its clients is simply not relevant; therefore, information about what 

reports may be generated concerning such fees is irrelevant.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2021 Page 6 of 8
Dated: June 16, 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

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

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

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

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2021 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 16, 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.

Michael Robert Lorigas, 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 75-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2021 Page 8 of 8