UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Company, 

Plaintiff, Case No: 15-10993

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.

Universal Rehab Services, Inc.,

PhysioFlex, PLLC,

Ahmad T. Abulabon, P.T.,

Summit Medical Group, PLLC, and

David Jankowski, D.O.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING THE UNIVERSAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

INTERROGATORY RESPONSES AND TO IDENTIFY AND PRODUCE 

RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS [ECF NO. 89]

I. Introduction

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) sued

Defendants alleging a scheme to submit fraudulent claims for no-fault benefits. 

Defendants Universal Rehab Services, LLC, PhysioFlex PLLC and Ahmad Abulabon

(collectively “Universal”) filed a Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and to

Identify and Produce Responsive Documents. The Motion is DENIED.

II. Background

On October 29, 2015, Universal served State Farm with its first request for

documents and the first set of interrogatories. State Farm responded and later

submitted an amended response on March 4, 2016. 

1

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 122 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 5124
III. Discussion

A. Identification of Responsive Documents

Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must produce

documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label

them to correspond to the categories in the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E).

To date, State Farm has produced 380,000 documents. State Farm says the

production can be broken down as follows:

Universal seeks to compel State Farm to identify documents more specifically

than by the above categories, and organize documents so that it is clear which

correspond to each request. Universal also wants State Farm to specifically exclude all

non-responsive or irrelevant documents. Universal complains State Farm produced an

2

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 122 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 5125
excessive number of pages, the majority of which concern irrelevant matters, contain

blank pages, and relate to patients who are not involved in this litigation. 

State Farm says it has no duty to identify which particular documents are

responsive to each request, and relies on authority from this district. See, MedCity

Rehab. Servs., LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-14777, 2013 WL

1875980, at *4 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 2013) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not

require a party to undertake the task of identifying which documents are responsive to

each document request of an opposing party.”) “If the producing party produces

documents in the manner in which they are kept in the ordinary course of business . . .

Rule 34 imposes no further duty to organize and label the documents to correlate to the

particular request to which they are responsive.” Consol. Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk W.

R.R. Co., No. CIV.A.09CV10179, 2009 WL 5151745, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2009)

(Citing Valeo Elec. Sys., Inc. v. Cleveland Die & Mfg Co., No. 08-cv-12486, 2009 WL

1803216, at *3 (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2009)).

State Farm says with each production it provided a cover letter explaining the

production and identifying the documents by category. Each production also contained

a file containing information about each document, such as confidentiality, descriptor,

and sometimes, claim number, author, recipient, copyee, folder name, email subject,

sent date, etc. State Farm says it produced emails responsive to the agreed-upon list of

search terms. 

State Farm says it produced documents as they are kept in the ordinary course

of business. It has also provided categories and listed the corresponding bates

numbers. The Court agrees with State Farm that it has no further duty to sort or

3

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 122 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 5126
organize the documents. 

B. Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3 

All interrogatories must be answered individually, fully, and under oath, to the

extent they are not objected to, within thirty days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P.

33(b).

Universal says State Farm’s responses are inadequate because they contain

boilerplate objections and do not provide basic information regarding each alleged RICO

event.

Interrogatories 2 and 3 seek the same information for Universal and PhysioFlex:

With respect to treatment rendered by Universal/PhysioFlex to any insured of

State Farm for the period of time from January 1, 2007, through the current date,

state:

a. Which treatments/modalities Universal billed for;

b. Which treatments/modalities were actually performed;

c. Which treatments/modalities should not have been performed and the

date(s) upon which they should not have been performed;

d. All information which supports the claim that the service should not have

been performed;

e. All persons who have knowledge of such information;

f. All documents which support the allegation. 

Generally, boilerplate objections without support are improper. The recent

amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 clarify this requirement. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection

and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds

for objecting to the request, including the reasons.”).

However, while State Farm’s responses to interrogatories 2 and 3 contain some

standard objection language, State Farm then goes on to substantively respond to each

4

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 122 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 5127
sub-part of the request and the answer refers to categories of documents in support. 

For example, in response to Interrogatory No. 2(a), State Farm says the information for

the claims at issue can be found in State Farm’s Enterprise Claim System (“ECS”) files

and billing data. With respect to the response for Interrogatory 2(b), State Farm says

none of the services billed was performed because they are medically necessary. State

Farm further states that whether and which treatments/modalities should not have been

performed will be the subject of expert testimony. 

The Court finds that in responding to Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3, State Farm

complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. State Farm’s objections are

limited and the responses provide substantive responses and refer to categories of

documents in support. Universal’s arguments that State Farm cannot meet its burden

of proof are better left for a motion on the merits, not a motion to compel. 

C. Interrogatory No. 5

Interrogatory No. 5 asks State Farm to identify the basis for its allegations that

Defendants applied the same treatment to every patient regardless of their needs. 

Universal wants State Farm to present whatever responsive materials it has in relation

to each individual patient’s treatment. 

State Farm says it does not intend to prove its case by establishing, on a patientby-patient basis, the actual condition of each patient and what treatment was

necessary. Instead, State Farm intends to prove Defendants did not legitimately treat

patients by establishing patterns of treatment and documentation that do not make

medical sense. In response to Interrogatory No. 5, State Farm provided a substantive

response and referenced supporting documents. Specifically, State Farm says

5

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 122 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 5128
Universal’s bills, the medical records, State Farm’s ECS files, activity logs, and

depositions support these allegations. 

Universal’s request to strike State Farm’s objections and require new

interrogatory responses is denied. 

D. Personal Health Information

Universal says State Farm’s document production contains the personal health

information of more than 500 patients who are not involved in the case. 

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”),

governs doctor-patient privilege and creates a strong federal policy in favor of protecting

the privacy of patient medical records. Strayhorne v. Caruso, No. CIV. 11-15216, 2014

WL 916814, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 10, 2014) (citations omitted). Under HIPAA, health

care providers cannot release a patient's protected health information except under

prescribed exceptions. Id. However, there is an exception that allows for disclosure of

information for purposes of judicial and administrative proceedings. 45 C.F.R. §

164.512(e)(1). Specifically, a covered entity may disclose protected health information

in response to a subpoena or discovery request if reasonable efforts have been made to

secure a protective order. 45 C.F.R. §164.512(e)(ii). 

State Farm says it produced the claim files and billing data for 85 of Defendants’

patients as well as additional documents including medical records that relate to the

case. 

On November 3, 2015, the parties entered a stipulated protective order that

specifically references personal health information. ECF No. 46 at 1373. It says any

document containing personal health information as defined by HIPPA and all patient

6

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 122 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 5129
files, medical records, billing statements, etc are designated “Confidential.” Id. 

State Farm’s document production has not unlawfully violated HIPPA. There is

an exception for judicial proceedings, the parties have a stipulated protective order in

place, and these documents have been labeled “confidential” pursuant to the protective

order which specifically references these types of documents. 

IV. Conclusion

The Universal Defendants’ Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and to

Identify and Produce Responsive Documents is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: September 26, 2016

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

September 26, 2016.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

7

2:15-cv-10993-VAR-APP Doc # 122 Filed 09/26/16 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 5130