LAWTON-DAVIS v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 6:14-cv-1157-Orl-37DAB. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160115r32
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . The purpose of this Order is to supplement the Court's prior rulings ( see Doc. 98) on the following motions: 1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Second Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production to Plaintiff [sic] (Doc. 53); and 2. Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 54). On January 6, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on all then-pending motions in this action, including a motion
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . The purpose of this Order is to supplement the Court's prior rulings ( see Doc. 98) on the following motions: 1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Second Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production to Plaintiff [sic] (Doc. 53); and 2. Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 54). On January 6, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on all then-pending motions in this action, including a motion t..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
The purpose of this Order is to supplement the Court's prior rulings (see Doc. 98) on the following motions:
1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Second Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production to Plaintiff [sic] (Doc. 53); and
2. Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 54).
On January 6, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on all then-pending motions in this action, including a motion to compel (Doc. 53) and a motion for protective order (Doc. 54) (collectively, "Discovery Motions"). (See Doc. 97 ("Hearing").) Upon consideration of the parties' arguments regarding the Discovery Motions, the Court, inter alia: (1) reserved ruling on the motion to compel; (2) granted the motion for protective order; (3) instructed Plaintiffs to produce certain information to the Court, in camera; and (4) advised the parties that it would determine whether Defendant was entitled to such information following an in-camera inspection. (See Doc. 98).
Pursuant to the Court's instructions, Plaintiffs produced the relevant information to the Court for an in-camera review. Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to only the vendor history information as to the following providers: (1) Central Florida Injury & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.; (2) Dr. Robert L. Masson; and (3) the Neurospine Institute.1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Second Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production to Plaintiffs [sic] (Doc. 53) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
a. To the extent that Defendant requests that Plaintiffs produce vendor history reports for Central Florida Injury & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Robert L. Masson, M.D., and the Neurospine Institute, the Motion is GRANTED, in part. Vendor history is limited to the last two calendar years.
b. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED.
2. On or before Friday, January 22, 2016, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to produce to Defendant the vendor history reports submitted to the Court as to Central Florida Injury and Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Robert L. Masson, M.D., and Neurospine Institute.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant is not entitled to the case list summary reports as to Central Florida Injury & Rehabilitation Center and Dr. Robert L. Masson.
Source: Leagle
