Exhibit B

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1183
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES and STATE OF TEXAS 

ex rel. DANIEL W. ELLIOTT, M.D. and 

LISA A. MINSLOFF, M.D.,

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 1:23-cv-00329-MJT

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

SOUTHEAST TEXAS MEDICAL 

ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., et al.,

)

)

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM LLC’S RESPONSES AND 

OBJECTIONS TO RELATORS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

TO: Relators Daniel W. Elliott, M.D. and Lisa A. Minsloff, M.D., by and through their counsel 

Joshua M. Russ, Reese Marketos LLP, 750 N. Saint Paul St. Ste. 600, Dallas, Texas 75201 

(josh.russ@rm-firm.com).

Defendant Steward Health Care System LLC (“Steward”) serves its responses and 

objections to Relators Daniel W. Elliott, M.D. and Lisa A. Minsloff, M.D.’s (collectively, 

“Relators”) First Set of Requests for Production (“Requests”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

Steward reserves its right to supplement or amend these responses and objections.

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 1184
2

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas G. Yoxall

Thomas G. Yoxall

 State Bar No. 00785304

 tyoxall@lockelord.com

Nicholas S. Graber

 State Bar No. 24122918

 nick.graber@lockelord.com

LOCKE LORD LLP

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 

Dallas, Texas 75201-6776 

(214) 740-8000 – Telephone 

(214) 740-8800 – Facsimile

Ryan M. DiSantis*

 State Bar No. (Mass.) 654513

 ryan.disantis@lockelord.com

Locke Lord LLP

111 Huntington Avenue, 9th Floor

Boston, MA 02199-7613

(617) 239-7613 – Telephone

(617) 227-4420 – Facsimile

*Admitted pro hac vice

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 24, 2023, I served a copy of this document on the individual in 

the “to” line above and known counsel of record via email.

/s/ Nicholas S. Graber

Nicholas S. Graber

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 1185
3

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Steward objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information or documents 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, common interest or joint defense 

privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity.

2. Independent of and without limiting any General Objection or specific objection, 

Steward objects to Relators’ request that it produce any requested documents by November 24, 

2023, and further objects to producing any documents before it has had a reasonable period of time 

to conduct any necessary searches and to review the material for responsiveness and potential 

privilege. For the avoidance of doubt, this General Objection shall not be taken to suggest that 

Steward agrees to produce any document in response to the Requests.

3. Steward objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require Steward 

to create new documents or material.

4. Steward will give all undefined words, terms, and phrases in the Requests their 

ordinary and plain meaning. Steward objects to any undefined word, term, or phrase in the 

Requests being given any other meaning. 

5. Steward objects to the definition of “You,” “your,” “Defendant,” and “Steward” 

included in Definition 1 on the basis that the definition includes Permian Premier Health Services, 

Inc. (“Permian”), a separate legal entity that is not a defendant in this case. This definition is unduly 

burdensome, overbroad, not proportional to the needs of the case, and designed to solicit 

documents not relevant to any claim or defense in the pleadings in this case (which consists solely 

of Relators’ Complaint). Relators do not assert a claim against Permian and therefore there is no 

basis to request material related to Permian. Steward voluntarily produced the transaction 

documents related to the transaction involving Permian and Southeast Texas Medical Associates, 

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 1186
4

L.L.P. (“SETMA”) to demonstrate that Steward was not the party involved with the SETMA 

transaction. Steward will define the foregoing terms to mean Steward Health Care System LLC.

6. Steward objects to the definitions of “Relators,” “SETMA,” and “OnPoint,” in 

Definitions 2-4 on the basis that those definitions purport to encompass “anyone acting on [] 

behalf” of those entities, while Steward would have no way of knowing the identity of such 

persons, or at least all such persons.

7. Steward objects to the Requests as overbroad in temporal scope—and therefore also 

as overbroad in subject matter scope, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, 

and as seeking irrelevant material outside the scope of discovery given that this is a qui tam 

action—on the basis that the Instructions state that the relevant time period is January 1, 2014 to 

the present even though Relators were only employed with SETMA from 2015 to early 2017 and 

do not assert a claim related to any time outside of that period. Steward will define the relevant 

time period from Relators first day of employment with SETMA through their last day of 

employment with SETMA.

8. Steward submits these General Objections and the Specific Objections without

conceding or admitting the competency, relevancy, materiality or admissibility of any documents 

and/or information it might produce or the subject matter of any such documents.

9. Steward objects to the Requests, including but not limited to the Instructions and 

Definitions sections, to the extent the Requests attempt to impose on Steward a duty or obligation 

beyond that required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to 

obligations beyond what is required in connection with claims of privilege, privilege logs, and 

formats of any document produced. 

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 1187
5

10. Steward incorporates its General Objections into all parts and subparts of the 

Requests and makes its responses subject to and without waiving these General Objections. The 

restatement of one or more of these General Objections into a response for a particular Request 

shall not be understood to mean that the other General Objections are not applicable to that 

Request. All General Objections are applicable to all Requests.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS

REQUEST NO. 1: In your Motion to Dismiss, you contend that “Relators’ complaint lacks 

any allegation regarding the type of transaction whereby SETMA became a part of [Steward], let 

alone that Steward assumed SETMA’s pretransaction liabilities through the deal.” (cleaned up). In 

Relators’ response to your Motion to Dismiss, Relators argued that Steward assumed SETMA’s 

liabilities under the de facto merger doctrine and the mere continuation doctrine. In connection 

with the factors related to those doctrines, produce all documents reflecting (1) the personnel, 

location, and assets of SETMA and (2) the current management of SETMA.

RESPONSE: Steward incorporates its General Objections as if fully stated herein. Steward 

objects to this Request as seeking documents outside the scope of discovery (i.e., irrelevant 

documents). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) states that: “Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope 

of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access 

to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). Relators did not plead successor liability against Steward 

in their Complaint, including but not limited to by way of the de facto merger doctrine or mere 

continuation doctrine. And, Relators’ arguments about these things in their brief in response to 

Steward’s motion to dismiss did not work to amend Relators’ Complaint. See Carnahan v. Argon 

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 1188
6

Med. Devices, Inc., 6:22-CV-080-JDK, 2022 WL 2392312, at *4 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2022) (“[I]t is 

well settled that a plaintiff cannot amend her complaint through a response brief”) (citing Roebuck 

v. Dothan Sec., Inc., 515 F. App’x 275, 280 (5th Cir. 2013)). The documents Relators seek through 

this Request are therefore clearly outside the scope of discovery and Steward objects to producing 

the same. Moreover, this Request seeks documents pertaining to SETMA—which itself is a 

defendant in this case. Steward therefore separately objects to producing any documents responsive 

to this Request on the basis that any such documents would be available from a more convenient 

source, i.e., SETMA. Steward also objects to this Request’s seeking of “[a]ll documents” on the 

basis that the Request fails to set forth the material sought with particularity as required by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). Steward further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks material protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, common interest privilege, or any 

other applicable privilege or immunity.

REQUEST NO. 2: In your Motion to Dismiss, you argue that “[t]he Complaint . . . is silent 

as to whether Dr. Castro’s email concerned Medicare or Medicaid patients, and does not allege 

that Dr. Castro encouraged SETMA’s doctors to send drug tests to OnPoint.” In connection with 

this allegation, produce all documents concerning any specimen from Medicare or Medicaid 

patients that SETMA sent to OnPoint for testing.

RESPONSE: Steward incorporates its General Objections as if fully stated herein. Steward 

objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the 

case as to Steward on the basis that this Request asks Steward to produce documents related to 

hypothetical interactions between two other parties—SETMA and OnPoint—and thus those other 

parties would be the proper recipients of this Request even assuming the Request was not otherwise 

objectionable. Steward objects to this Request as overbroad in temporal scope and subject matter, 

unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case on the basis that Relators fail to 

allege any facts supporting their bare, conclusory allegations and therefore this Request is an 

impermissible fishing expedition. Steward further objects to this Request as overbroad in temporal 

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 1189
7

scope as to Steward and therefore also overbroad in subject matter scope, unduly burdensome, and 

not proportional to the needs of the case on the basis that all of Relators’ allegations pre-date the 

SETMA-Permian transaction. Therefore, while Steward would not be a proper defendant even if 

Relators alleged any misconduct after that transaction, it is independently true that there is no basis 

to issue this Request to Steward given the temporal scope of the Complaint’s allegations. Steward 

also objects to this Request’s seeking of “[a]ll documents” on the basis that the Request fails to set 

forth the material sought with particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). Steward 

further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks material protected by the attorney-client 

privilege, attorney work product doctrine, common interest privilege, or any other applicable 

privilege or immunity.

REQUEST NO. 3: In your Motion to Dismiss, you contend that “Relators do not plead 

any facts indicating that SETMA directed doctors to send the allegedly unnecessary drug tests to 

OnPoint.” In connection with this allegation, produce all communications discussing SETMA’s

(1) ownership in OnPoint and (2) use of OnPoint to test specimen.

RESPONSE: Steward incorporates its General Objections as if fully stated herein. Steward 

objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the 

case as to Steward on the basis that this Request asks Steward to produce documents related to 

hypothetical interactions between two other parties—SETMA and OnPoint—and thus those other 

parties would be the proper recipients of this Request even assuming the Request was not otherwise 

objectionable. Steward objects to this Request as overbroad in temporal scope and subject matter, 

unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case on the basis that Relators fail to 

allege any facts supporting their bare, conclusory allegations and therefore this Request is an 

impermissible fishing expedition. Steward further objects to this Request as overbroad in temporal 

scope as to Steward and therefore also overbroad in subject matter scope, unduly burdensome, and 

not proportional to the needs of the case on the basis that all of Relators’ allegations pre-date the 

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 1190
8

SETMA-Permian transaction. Therefore, while Steward would not be a proper defendant even if 

Relators alleged any misconduct after that transaction, it is independently true that there is no basis 

to issue this Request to Steward given the temporal scope of the Complaint’s allegations. Steward 

also objects to this Request’s seeking of “[a]ll documents” on the basis that the Request fails to set 

forth the material sought with particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). Steward 

further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks material protected by the attorney-client 

privilege, attorney work product doctrine, common interest privilege, or any other applicable 

privilege or immunity.

Case 1:23-cv-00329-MJT Document 122-2 Filed 12/28/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 1191