UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-10993 

Plaintiff, District Judge Victoria A. Roberts 

vs. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

 

UNIVERSAL REHAB SERVICES, INC., 

PHYSIOFLEX, P.L.L.C., 

SUMMIT MEDICAL GROUP, P.L.L.C., 

DAVID JANKOWSKI, D.O., and 

AHMAD T. ABULABON, P.T., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER DEEMING RESOLVED IN PART and GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF STATE FARM’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE SUMMIT 

DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS (DE 159)

 Judge Roberts has referred this case to me to conduct all non-dispositive 

pretrial proceedings. (DE 165.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff State 

Farm’s January 19, 2017 motion to compel Defendant Summit Medical Group, 

P.L.L.C. and Defendant David Jankowski, D.O. (“the Summit Defendants”) to 

produce responsive documents. (DE 159.) As set forth in State Farm’s argument, 

the requests at issue concern (a) patient files related to the seven patients identified 

in the complaint; (b) patient files for Summit and non-party Summit Physicians 

Group (SPG) patients who received physical therapy at Defendant Universal Rehab 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 191 Filed 03/03/17 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 7000
2 

Services and Defendant PhysioFlex (“the PT clinics”); and (c) electronically stored 

information (ESI) pursuant to agreed-upon search terms. (DE 159 at 25-31.) 

The Summit Defendants have filed a response, arguing that (a) information 

regarding non-State Farm insured patients is not relevant to this case and (b) they 

have produced all patient files in their possession. (DE 169 at 22-23.) In reply, 

Plaintiff State Farm asserts that the Summit Defendants must produce (a) “ESI 

according to the agreed-upon search terms,” and (b) “files for non-[State Farm] 

insureds [who] also received PT at Universal and/or PhysioFlex[.]” (DE 170 at 

6-11.) 

 A hearing was noticed for February 27, 2017, on which date counsel for the 

parties appeared in my courtroom. (DE 174.)1

 On the same date, the parties filed a 

joint statement of resolved and unresolved issues, indicating that the issue 

concerning the records of patients identified in the complaint has been resolved. 

(DE 184.) Therefore, the Court need only address the other two issues. 

Having considered the motion papers and oral argument, and for the reasons 

stated from the bench, which are incorporated by this reference as though fully 

 

1 Attorneys Kathy P. Josephson (Chicago, Illinois) and David D. O’Brien appeared 

on Plaintiff’s behalf; Gary R. Blumberg and Peter W. Joelson appeared on behalf of 

the Summit Defendants; Gerard V. Mantese appeared on behalf of the Universal 

Defendants; and Richard G. Finch appeared on behalf of Pacific Marketing, Inc. and 

Garden State Media, Inc. 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 191 Filed 03/03/17 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 7001
3 

restated herein, State Farm’s motion to compel (DE 159) is GRANTED as follows: 

 As to responsive ESI: 

 Utilizing a date range of January 1, 2009 to present, 

Defendant Summit Medical Group and Defendant 

Jankowski shall search all documents and emails stored on all 

computers, hard drives, smartphones, laptops, and personal 

electronic devices in the Defendants’ possession, custody or 

control using the following search terms, and produce the 

responsive documents and emails to Plaintiff State Farm (see DE 

159-25 at 2): 

 Search terms as set forth in motion Exhibit 24 (DE 159-25 

at 3-9) 

 An additional search term of Ybana W/3 of Agrelo 

 E-mail addresses mike@45.com, mangelo@gmail.com, 

mangelo3362@gmail.com, yba98@aol.com and 

djanko1@aol.com. 

 As to patient files for non-State Farm insureds who were also 

treated by Universal Rehab Services and PhysioFlex: 

 The requested information is relevant and proportional to 

the needs of the case, in light of the various RICO counts 

within the amended complaint (DE 107), the amount in 

controversy, the importance to the needs of the case, the 

respective burdens on the parties, the parties’ relative 

access to the information, and the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). State Farm is entitled to discovery related to all 

victims of the alleged racketeering scheme and regarding 

allegedly fraudulent claims made to insurers other than 

Plaintiff State Farm, because such information would tend 

to support the finding of a pattern of mail fraud and / or 

identify the number of victims. 

 In order to reduce the burden of fulfilling this request, and 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 191 Filed 03/03/17 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 7002
4 

as stipulated on the record, the following procedure shall 

be followed: 

 On or before March 20, 2017, Defendants 

Universal Rehab Services, PhysioFlex and 

Abulabon (“the Universal Defendants”) shall 

provide Plaintiff State Farm and the Summit 

Defendants with a list / report of Summit Medical 

Group patients treated at Universal Rehab and 

PhysioFlex who were prescribed physical therapy 

by Defendant Jankowski (whether at Defendant 

Summit Medical Group or SPG)2

 or by other 

doctors who worked at Defendant Summit Medical 

Group and identify, to the extent possible, which 

doctor it was that prescribed the physical therapy. 

 Within 3 weeks of their receipt of the list, the 

Summit Defendants shall search their files and 

provide Plaintiff State Farm with their patient files 

for non-State Farm insureds who were also treated 

by Universal Rehab Services and PhysioFlex, 

subject to any confidential designation necessary to 

protect the patients’ personal or medical 

information. 

Should any of the parties require more time in complying with this timeframe, 

the attorneys may contact my chambers to request a teleconference, but only 

after conferring in an attempt to resolve the issue on their own,. 

 

2 While State Farm’s motion’s prayer for relief is limited to the Summit Defendants, 

it is clear that the first set of document requests to Summit and the first set of 

document requests to Jankowski are subjects of the instant motion to compel. (DE 

159 at 9, 32; see also DE 159 at 30). Those discovery requests contain definitions 

of “you” and Requests for Production No. 2 which fairly encompass Dr. 

Jankowski’s work at non-party SPG. (DE 159-2 at 2, 6 and DE 159-3 at 2, 6). 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 191 Filed 03/03/17 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 7003
5 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2017 s/Anthony P. Patti 

Anthony P. Patti 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on March 3, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 191 Filed 03/03/17 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 7004