UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-81883-Ruiz/McCabe 

BRITTANY ROBERSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER ON DE 156

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of 

Documents (“Motion”) (DE 156). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Background 

This is a putative class action against a nursing school. In November 2023, Plaintiffs

propounded a Third Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) on Defendant Health Career 

Institute, LLC (“HCI”) and a Second RFP on Defendant Florian Education Investors, LLC (“FEI”). 

HCI and FEI objected to many of the requests (DE 170-1), prompting a period of negotiation to 

resolve the objections. This Motion followed, presenting discovery disputes the parties could not 

resolve.1

 The Court uses the following abbreviations below: 

1 During the discovery hearing on this Motion, the Court also heard argument on certain RFPs that 

were not specifically raised in the Motion. For efficiency, the Court rules on the objections without 

the need for additional motion practice. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 1 of 10
2

OB overly broad P proportionality

V vague R relevance

A ambiguous

HCI Discovery

The Court issues the following rulings as to the RFP issued to HCI:

# Description2 Obj. Ruling

1 P&L statements, balance 

sheets, etc.

OB, V, A, 

P, R

All objections overruled. 

As to OB, V and A, the RFP seeks discrete docs using 

terms of art familiar to any financial or accounting 

professional. 

As to R, the RFP seeks docs relevant to the issue of 

control, a necessary element of the case. See DE 136 

at 4, DE 155. Financial overlap and interrelatedness 

between the Defendants tend to prove control or lack 

thereof.

As to P, HCI has not made a showing necessary to 

support this objection.

HCI shall produce responsive docs.

2 Docs re: audits, etc. OB, V, A, 

P, R 

Sustained as to R and OB.

The Court finds audits not relevant to the issue of 

control. The Court rejects, as tenuous, Plaintiffs’ 

argument that audits might show financial hardship 

and hence motivation to commit the scheme alleged.

4 Monthly operation reports, 

etc.

OB, V, A, 

P 

All objections overruled. 

HCI shall produce the responsive docs in native 

format as agreed in open court.

2 For the sake of brevity, this column sets forth a shorthand description of each RFP, rather than a

verbatim copy of the complete text. The parties should not interpret these shorthand descriptions 

to have any substantive impact or limitation on the Court’s holdings.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 2 of 10
3

5 Communications re: 

investor newsletters, 

reports, presentations, etc.

OB, V, A, 

P, R 

Overruled as to V, A, P, and R.

As to R, the Court finds these items relevant to the 

control and accreditation issues framed by the 

pleadings. 

Sustained in part as to OB. HCI shall produce 

newsletters, reports and presentations made or 

delivered to investors, but need not produce the 

underlying communications re: these items or docs re: 

the preparation of these items.

 

6 External audits/reviews of 

HCI’s enrollment 

processes, etc.

OB, V, A All objections overruled. 

HCI shall provide Bates numbers as agreed in open 

court.

7 Internal audits/review of 

HCI’s enrollment process, 

etc.

OB, V, A All objections overruled. 

HCI shall produce the responsive docs in native 

format as agreed in open court.

8 Notes re: “New” RN 

Program, etc.

None HCI represents that all responsive docs have been 

produced.

 

9 Notes re: Choice of Exit 

Exam, etc.

None HCI represents that all responsive docs have been 

produced.

 

10 Notes from ExCom 

Meetings re: advancement 

and graduation 

requirements, etc.

None Motion granted. This ruling will be more thoroughly 

discussed below. 

12 Undercover reviews or 

reports between employees 

and consumers, etc.

OB, V, A All objections overruled. 

HCI shall provide Bates numbers as agreed in open 

court.

13 The “written processes” 

re: curriculum referred to 

in Alicia Dennis 

deposition, etc.

OB, V, A Overruled as to V and A.

Sustained in part as to OB. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 3 of 10
4

HCI shall consult with witness Alicia Dennis, find out 

what she meant by “written processes,” and then 

produce the “written processes” to Plaintiffs.

HCI need not produce all communications re: the 

“written processes,” as the Court finds this to be OB.

If the witness retracts her previous testimony, the 

Court may require her to sit for another deposition at 

HCI expense.

14 The “written processes” 

re: student advancement 

referred to in Alicia 

Dennis deposition, etc.

OB, V, A Overruled as to V and A.

Sustained in part as to OB. 

HCI shall consult with witness Alicia Dennis, find out 

what she meant by “written processes,” and then 

produce the “written processes” to Plaintiffs.

HCI need not produce all communications re: the 

“written processes,” as the Court finds this to be OB.

If the witness retracts her previous testimony, the 

Court may require her to sit for another deposition at 

HCI expense.

15 Docs re: Tatsiana 

Tuchinsky/EduCompliance

OB, V, A, 

R

Overruled as to V, A, and R.

As to R, the Court finds these docs relevant to the 

accreditation and nursing program issues framed by 

the pleadings.

Sustained in part as to OB. 

HCI shall produce agreements for services, 

communications regarding services, and any reports 

generated pursuant to agreements for services. HCI 

need not produce further docs.

 

17 Docs re: Equity 

Appreciation Rights Plan, 

etc.

OB, V, A, 

R, P

Sustained as to R

The Court rejects, as tenuous, Plaintiffs’ argument that 

employee or officer stock rights might show 

motivation to commit the scheme alleged.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 4 of 10
5

 

18

a-c

Docs re: Sachs Media, etc. OB, V, A, 

R, P

Overruled as to OB, V, A, and P.

Sustained in part as to R.

The Court previously ordered, as part of DE 133,

production of certain responsive communications with

Sachs Media. The Court rejects, as tenuous and far

afield, the additional requests, with one exception:

 

HCI shall produce docs that explain how HCI 

calculated the press release statement that “at least 300 

graduates ... have passed the National Council 

Licensure Examination” as set forth in RFP 18c.

 

24 Invoices, contracts, 

communications re:

advertising/marketing 

companies, etc.

OB, V, A, 

R

Overruled as to OB, V, and A.

Sustained in part as to R. The Court finds this RFP 

relevant to the racial targeting claims set forth in 

Counts 8 and 9, but the Court finds the request for 

invoices to be irrelevant. HCI shall produce 

responsive docs apart from invoices.

 

25 Work Produced by SEM, 

Heart Globe, and similar 

companies to market HCI, 

etc.

OB, V, A, 

R

Sustained as to OB, V, and A.

The Court finds the term “work produced” to be 

confusing, potentially encompassing broad categories 

of overly broad and irrelevant docs.

 

26 Contracts & 

communications with 

Facebook, Google, or 

other marketing services 

OB, V, A, 

R

All objections overruled.

As to R, the Court finds this RFP relevant to the racial 

targeting claims set forth in Counts 8 and 9.

HCI shall produce responsive docs. 

27 Docs re: instructors of core 

nursing courses 

OB, V, A, Motion denied.

HCI represents that all responsive docs have been 

produced. 

28 Docs re: payments OB, V, A, 

R

Sustained as to V and A.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 5 of 10
6

The Court finds the RFP to be grammatically 

confusing and unclear as to the docs requested.

RFP 10 to HCI: Privilege Claims & Redacted Documents

In response to RFP 10, HCI produced heavily redacted ExCom meeting minutes. HCI 

claims to have redacted material that was either (a) not relevant or (b) privileged as work product 

and/or attorney-client communication (DE 170 at 4-5). 

As to category (a), parties cannot redact portions of otherwise discoverable documents 

based on unilateral determinations of relevance. See ADP, LLC v. Ultimate Software Group, Inc., 

No. 17-CV-61274, 2017 WL 7794226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2017) (“[P]rohibiting the practice 

of unilaterally redacting irrelevant information is the only interpretation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 that 

yields just, speedy, and inexpensive determinations of every action and proceeding” as required 

by Rule 1) (cleaned up). As such, HCI shall remove all redactions that do not correspond to a 

claim of privilege, logged on a privilege log in accordance with the Local Rules. To mitigate 

concerns surrounding the disclosure of sensitive information in discovery, the parties may 

designate documents as confidential pursuant to their Confidentiality Stipulation (DE 71). See 

Lebbin-Spector Family Tr. by & through Lebbin v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 18-CV-80558, 

2019 WL 13211445, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2019) (rejecting the unilateral redaction of irrelevant 

information and ordering production of unredacted documents subject to the parties’ stipulated 

protective order governing discovery).

As to category (b), the Court performed an in-camera review of all portions of the ExCom 

meeting minutes logged on HCI’s privilege log. The Court finds all claims of privilege to be valid, 

proper, and not waived. The ExCom meeting minutes include discussion, among HCI company 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 6 of 10
7

executives and officers, of legal advice rendered to the company by HCI’s counsel. Corporate 

employees do not waive the attorney-client privilege by discussing privileged communications 

with other employees “who, because of the corporate structure, need to know” the privileged 

content. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377, 1383 (Fla. 1994); see also 

Burrow v. Forjas Taurus S.A., 334 F. Supp. 3d 1222, 1235–36 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (discussing and 

collecting cases for the proposition that corporate employees can discuss privileged information 

even without the presence of the corporation's counsel without waiving the privilege); Bank 

Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A., 160 F.R.D. 437, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (noting 

that, where federal law governs privilege, “the privilege protects from disclosure communications 

among corporate employees that reflect advice rendered by counsel to the corporation”).

FEI Discovery

The Court issues the following rulings as to the RFP issued to FEI:

1 Investor newsletters & 

report, etc.

OB, V, A, 

P, R 

Overruled as to V, A, P, and R.

As to R, the Court finds these items relevant to the 

control and accreditation issues framed by the 

pleadings.

Sustained in part as to OB. FEI shall produce

newsletters but need not produce drafts or 

communications re: newsletters.

 

2 Docs re: FEI investor 

presentations 

OB, V, A, 

P, R

Overruled as to V, A, P, and R.

As to R, the Court finds these items relevant to the 

control and accreditation issues framed by the 

pleadings.

Sustained in part as to OB. HCI shall produce 

investor presentations but need not produce drafts, 

communications, etc.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 7 of 10
8

 

9 Docs re: FEI involvement 

in HCI tax returns.

OB, V, A, 

P, R 

Overruled as to V, A, P, and R.

As to R, the Court finds these items relevant to 

control, a necessary element of the case. See DE 136 

at 4, DE 155. Financial overlap and interrelatedness 

between the Defendants tend to prove or disprove 

ability to control.

Sustained in part as to OB. FEI shall produce FEI’s 

and HCI’s tax returns during the requested periods 

including all schedules. FEI need not produce other 

docs requested by this RFP.

 

10 P&L statements, balance 

sheets, etc.

OB, V, A, 

P, R 

All objections overruled. 

As to OB, V and A, the RFP seeks discrete docs using 

terms of art familiar to any financial or accounting 

professional. 

As to R, the RFP seeks docs relevant to the issue of 

control, a necessary element of the case. See DE 136 

at 4, DE 155. Financial overlap and interrelatedness 

between the Defendants tend to prove or disprove 

ability to control.

As to P, HCI has not made a showing necessary to 

support this objection.

11 Docs re: audits OB, V, A, 

P, R 

Sustained as to R and OB.

The Court finds audits not relevant to the issue of 

control. The Court rejects, as tenuous, Plaintiffs’

argument that audits might show financial hardship 

and hence motivation to commit the scheme alleged.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 8 of 10
9

Conclusion

For all of the above reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Motion (DE 156) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set 

forth above. 

2. Any documents ordered to be produced by way of this Order shall be produced 

within 30 days of the date of this Order, unless the parties agree otherwise.

3. The parties may designate documents as confidential pursuant to their

Confidentiality Stipulation (DE 71). However, the mere fact that parties designate materials as 

confidential under a private agreement does not alter the parties’ burdens under Local Rule 5.4 

governing the filing of sealed materials. Confidential treatment for purposes of discovery may not 

be sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings. As such, if 

either party seeks approval to submit a document under seal, such party must comply with Local 

Rule 5.4. The Confidentiality Stipulation binds the parties, not the Court, and good cause must 

still be shown before a filing is sealed.

4. To the extent HCI claims privilege over any of the documents ordered to be 

produced by way of this Order, HCI shall file a privilege log in accordance with the Local Rules. 

The parties may not redact documents without recording their redactions on a privilege log in 

compliance with the Local Rules. In other words, parties may not redact portions of documents 

merely because they believe those portions to be non-responsive or irrelevant. All redactions must 

be logged.

5. To the extent any documents ordered to be produced by way of this Order include 

emails, the parties shall reach an agreement on search terms and custodians within one week of 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 9 of 10
10 

the date of this Order. If no agreement can be reached, the parties shall present the issue to the 

Court immediately.

6. The Court declines to shift attorneys’ fees or award payment of expenses pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), as the Court finds the parties were substantially justified in taking some 

of their respective positions in this dispute and that the circumstances here would make an award 

of expenses to either side unjust. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of 

Florida, this 5th day of February 2024. 

RYON M. MCCABE

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 10 of 10