UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

West Palm Beach Division 

BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA 

FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, TIFFANY 

KING, and TRESHA THOMPSON, 

individually and on behalf of others similarly 

situated,

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba 

HCI COLLEGE LLC and HCI 

ACQUISITION LLC), FLORIAN 

EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, and 

STEVEN W. HART,

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 9:22-cv-81883-RAR

 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM 

DEFENDANTS HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC AND FLORIAN EDUCATION 

INVESTORS LLC

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 1 of 7
1 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), Plaintiffs Brittany Roberson, Rebecca 

Freeman, Bianca Viñas, Tiffany King, and Tresha Thompson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby 

file this Motion to Compel Better and More Complete Discovery Responses from Defendant 

Health Career Institute LLC (dba HCI College LLC and HCI Acquisition LLC) (“HCI”) and 

Defendant Florian Education Investors LLC (“FEI”). This is the fourth Motion to Compel that 

Plaintiffs have had to file in this case, and they endeavored to avoid having to seek the Court’s 

intervention again. Defendants’ continued disregard for the rules governing discovery and this 

Court’s discovery orders, lack of respect for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s time, and interference with 

Plaintiffs’ ability to properly make their case cannot be tolerated.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs served their third set of requests for production (“RFPs”) on HCI and second set 

of RFPs on FEI on November 2, 2023. Pursuant to Judge McCabe’s Order on ECF No. 104 (ECF 

No. 133), responses were due on November 16. On November 17, undersigned counsel reached 

out to Defendants’ counsel to inquire about the status of the production. Exhibit A. Defendants’ 

counsel responded that they had “been slammed the last couple weeks” and requested “a bit of an 

extension.” Id. Plaintiffs agreed to an extension until November 22, for FEI’s production and until 

November 30, 2023, for HCI’s production. Id. Defendants served FEI’s production on November 

22, and supplemented it on December 1. Defendants served HCI’s production on December 1. 

On December 21, 2023, undersigned counsel wrote to Defendants’ counsel to raise several 

issues with the productions, including Defendants’ objections that certain requests were vague or 

ambiguous and/or irrelevant and the fact that many responsive documents appeared to be missing. 

See Exhibit B (“M&C Letter”). Undersigned counsel asked for an extension until January 9, 2024, 

for Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel the production of documents, pursuant to Local Rule 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 2 of 7
2

26.1(g)(1). See Exhibit C, at 9. On December 22, 2023, Defendants’ counsel agreed to discuss the 

discovery letter on January 4, 2024, and agreed to the extension of time to file a motion to compel.

See id. at 7–8. On December 23, 2023, undersigned counsel proposed times for the January 4, 

2024, call. See id. at 7. Undersigned counsel followed up again on January 2. Id. Receiving no 

response, undersigned counsel wrote again on January 3, 2024. Id. at 6–7. Defendants’ counsel 

responded and stated that they would soon confirm the time for the conference the following 

afternoon. Id. at 6. The following morning, however, Defendants’ counsel wrote to move the 

conference to Friday, January 5. Id. at 5.

Counsel ultimately conferred on January 5, 2024, at 2:30 pm. Defendants’ counsel stated 

that numerous supplemental productions were forthcoming and requested more time to complete 

the requests before Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Compel. Undersigned counsel agreed to file a 

Joint Motion for Extension of Time; that motion was filed on January 8, 2024, ECF No. 149, and 

granted the following day, ECF No. 150. Counsel next talked through the M&C Letter. Counsel 

appeared to reach agreement as to many of the disputed requests; as to others, Defendants’ counsel 

indicated that they would consult with their clients and propose narrowed requests. Undersigned 

counsel circulated a summary of that conversation later that evening. See Exhibit C at 2–4.

On January 8, 2024, Defendants’ counsel responded, “Hopefully we will have a lot of 

agreements in the next couple days, per our discussions.” Id. at 1. On January 10, 2024, 

Defendants’ counsel wrote to ask whether Plaintiffs would oppose their request for a further

extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See Exhibit D at 2. 

Undersigned counsel agreed to the extension on the condition that Defendants’ counsel would 

begin the supplemental productions and identify outstanding issues by the end of the following 

day. See id. at 1. Defendants’ counsel did not respond. On January 11, 2024, undersigned counsel 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 3 of 7
3 

emailed Defendants’ counsel to ask whether they had an agreement, noting: “Our MTC is due on 

Tuesday, and we need to know what issues that we raised in our letter have been resolved and what 

we still need to move to compel. . . . We’d rather not waste our time - and the Court’s time - 

briefing issues unnecessarily.” Id. Defendants’ counsel responded that they would “endeavor to 

get . . . an update tomorrow.” Id. No update was ever given. 

As of the time of this filing, Defendants have not made any supplemental productions, 

provided the requested indexes, or proposed any narrowed requests. 

ARGUMENT

A. Improper Objections that Requests Are “Overly Broad, Vague and Ambiguous” 

Defendants objected that RFPs 1, 2, 13, 15, and 28 to HCI and RFPs 10 and 11 to FEI were 

“overly broad, vague and ambiguous.” See Exhibit E; Exhibit F. None of these objections has 

merit. For example, Request 1 to HCI and Request 10 to FEI seek “[a]ll profit and loss statements, 

balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flows.” These are clearly defined, easily 

understandable terms that are routinely used in business and accounting. Indeed, at his deposition, 

Ryan Miller, HCI’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), testified that every month, he reviews HCI’s 

income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flow. Exhibit G at 123:3–11. Request 13 

to HCI seeks “[a]ll ‘written processes’ regarding curriculum creation and changes to curricula, as 

discussed by Alecia Dennis during her 30(b)(6) deposition, and all communications regarding 

same,” citing Ms. Dennis’s deposition transcript. Although HCI claimed that “Ms. Dennis 

specifically did not specifically identify the existence of any ‘written process’ in the quoted parts 

of her deposition,” a quick review of the cited lines shows that she did: 

Q: And so I’ll ask, are HCI processes written down? 

A: So yes, we have guidance on the various processes we implement. 

Q: So regarding curriculum creation and changes to curricula, are their [sic] written processes 

for that? 

A: Right. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 4 of 7
4 

See Exhibit H at 75:18–24. The remaining requests are similarly clear and unambiguous, as 

explained in the M&C Letter. To the extent that further explanation was arguably warranted, 

Plaintiffs provided it, but Defendants still refused to produce any documents. Defendants’ 

vagueness objections are meritless and should be overruled. 

B. Improper Objections that Requests Are Irrelevant

Defendant objected that RFPs 1, 2, 15, 25, and 28 to HCI and RFPs 1, 9, 10, and 11 to FEI 

are irrelevant. These objections are meritless. For example, RFP 1 to HCI and RFP 10 to FEI seek 

financial statements. See Exhibit F; Exhibit G. As this Court recognized when granting a prior 

motion to compel financial information, ECF No. 96 at 2–3, such information is fundamentally 

relevant to this case. The gravamen of the Second Amended Complaint is that Defendants grossly 

overcharge for a subpar product. Information showing where tuition dollars actually went, and 

where they are now, is thus plainly relevant. The remaining requests also seek highly relevant 

information, including FEI investor reports and investor voicemails that were left out of the 

production without explanation, as discussed in the M&C Letter. Defendants cannot meet their 

burden of establishing a lack of relevancy, and their objections should be overruled. 

C. Documents Promised but not Produced

Defendant HCI’s written responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of RFPs stated that documents 

would be produced for RFPs 4, 5, 7, 24, 27, 28, and 29. However, from the PDF names of the 

documents produced, it appears that nothing was produced in response to these requests. During 

the January 5 conference, Defendants’ counsel stated that responsive documents were 

forthcoming. However, no further production was made. For RFPs 6, 12, and 14, HCI’s responses 

indicated that responsive documents were already produced; however, no Bates numbers were 

provided. Additionally, testimony and documents obtained to date indicate that there should be at 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 5 of 7
5 

least 60 sets of Executive Committee (“ExCom”) meeting notes (one for each month during the 

relevant period) responsive to RFP 10, yet meeting notes were provided for only 25 meetings. 

Defendant HCI should be required to produce all documents responsive to RFPs 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 

14, 24, 27, 28, and 29. To the extent that responsive documents were previously produced, 

Defendant HCI should be required to provide an index identifying those documents. 

D. Improper Redactions

In response to RFP No. 10, HCI produced 24 sets of ExCom meeting minutes and withheld

seven sets as privileged attorney work-product. Of those produced, every set is heavily redacted

and marked as confidential. Such heavy unilateral redaction is improper. See ADP, LLC v. Ultimate 

Software Grp., 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.”). Furthermore, the information on the log for the seven withheld 

sets does not support a finding that the withheld documents are in fact privileged. First, three of 

the documents were created before this lawsuit was ever filed. See Dargan v. Federated Life Ins. 

Co., No. 22-cv-14284, 2023 WL 8177276, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2023) (“In order for the [work 

product] doctrine to apply, the party must anticipate litigation at the time the document is 

created.”). Second, the doctrine “does not apply to materials or documents drafted in the ordinary 

course of business,” id., and the minutes were drafted by HCI’s CFO at regularly scheduled 

monthly ExCom meetings, Exhibit G at 94:4–16; 99:7-15. Significantly, the privilege log does not 

identify the attorney whose work product or communications are allegedly reflected in the 

withheld documents, nor does it identify the client to whom such a privilege would belong. This 

Court should order the production of all ExCom meeting minutes without redaction. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 6 of 7
6 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiffs now respectfully request that the Court grant 

their motion to compel. 

Dated: January 16, 2024 

 Respectfully submitted,

 

 /s/ Jennifer Thelusma 

JENNIFER THELUSMA

 Florida Bar No. 1019776 

 jthelusma@ppsl.org

REBECCA EISENBREY

 (pro hac vice) 

 reisenbrey@ppsl.org 

VICTORIA ROYTENBERG

 (pro hac vice) 

 vroytenberg@ppsl.org

 Project on Predatory Student Lending 

 769 Centre Street, Suite 160 

 Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

 (617) 390-2669 

 

NICOLE MAYER 

 Florida Bar No. 012035 

Nicole@MayerLawFlorida.com 

 171 Dommerich Drive 

Maitland, Florida 32751 

 (352) 494-3657 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 7 of 7