MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL P. SHEA, District Judge.

Plaintiff-Relator Paul Fabula, brings this action under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., against Defendant American Medical Response, Inc. ("AMR"). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff-Relator's motion for extension of the deadlines set out in the Second Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 131) and a discovery dispute between the parties. I attach to this ruling the correspondence and discovery requests received from the parties regarding their dispute. On September 5, 2018 I held a telephonic oral argument concerning the dispute. This ruling resolves the issues raised in the parties' correspondence and those raised in the telephonic oral argument.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On June 22, 2012, Fabula filed this qui tam action as a relator on behalf of the United States. (ECF No. 1.) The United States declined to intervene in 2013. (ECF No. 18.) Fabula filed his second amended complaint ("SAC"), bringing a claim on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(1) and (a)(2) ("FCA"), and a claim on his own behalf for retaliation in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The Court dismissed the FCA claim and the retaliation claim, but stayed its decision to give Chorches, the trustee of Fabula's bankruptcy estate, a chance to pursue the claims. (ECF No. 67.) Chorches pursued the FCA claim by timely filing the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), which the Court later dismissed as well. (ECF No. 82.) In July 2017, the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims, holding that the SAC stated a retaliation claim and that the TAC stated a claim under the FCA. See United States ex rel. Chorches v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., 865 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2017). Fabula subsequently moved to file a Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC), combining the retaliation claim from the SAC with the FCA claim from the TAC and substituting Fabula for Chorches given that his bankruptcy proceeding had concluded. (ECF No. 105.). The Court granted the motion on January 3, 2018. (ECF No. 115.)

B. Fabula's Claims

Fabula claims that the Defendant violated the FCA by seeking reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid for ambulance transports that it certified were medically necessary despite knowledge that they were not. (ECF No. 105 ¶ 14.)1 Fabula alleges that, as an employee of AMR, he was forced to modify Patient Care Reports ("PCRs") based on handwritten notes given to him and his co-workers by supervisors. (Id. at ¶ 24.) He claims that the changes were required in order to fraudulently convert non-reimbursable trips into reimbursable trips under Medicare and Medicaid. (Id. ¶ 32.) The FAC lists several specific ambulance runs for which Fabula was instructed to revise his PCRs in order to obtain payment from Medicare or Medicaid. (ECF No. 105 ¶¶ 88-94, 97, 99, 100.) The FAC additionally alleges broader schemes aimed at increasing reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid. For example, Fabula claims that an electronic filing system required "that the box for `paramedic assessment' had to be checked for every run, and that no PCR could go through the system and be processed without checking Advanced Life Support . . . assessment." (Id. at ¶ 133.). These designations would trigger reimbursement for an additional $1,200 to $1,500 from Medicare or Medicaid per ambulance run. (Id. ¶¶ 134-136.) Similarly, Fabula alleges that the computerized forms would automatically insert "Yes" in the field asking whether patients were "bed confined" regardless of whether that designation was accurate (Id. ¶ 139.) This made it more likely that the ambulance trip would be reimbursable. (Id. ¶ 65.)

Fabula's retaliation claim focuses on a specific PCR. He alleges that he was ordered to make changes to a PCR for an ambulance run in early December 2011 (Id. ¶ 50), but that he refused, (Id. ¶ 59, 70). AMR allegedly responded by threatening him with termination (Id. ¶ 72), and later suspended him and refused to allow him to return to work, (Id. ¶ 73). Fabula alleges that this indefinite suspension amounted to a de facto termination of his employment. (Id. at ¶ 74.)

II. DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Following remand from the Second Circuit, the Court ordered the parties to file a revised report under Local Rule 26(f). (ECF No. 96.) In their report, the parties jointly requested phased discovery as the Second Circuit had suggested in its opinion in this case. (ECF No. 99 at 7) (citing Am. Med. Response, Inc., 865 F.3d at 88 n.13 ("Where a qui tam relator identifies representative examples of false claims or, as here, makes allegations leading to a strong inference that specific false claims were submitted, defendants could initially be required to provide discovery only with respect to the cases identified in the complaint.")). The Court adopted the parties' request in its scheduling order. (ECF No. 120.) As a result, the Court ordered that discovery would take place in two phases, with Phase I including only "(1) the specific claims and ambulance runs identified in the operative Complaint; (2) Fabula's retaliation claim; and (3) whether Mr. Fabula is judicially estopped from recovering on the False Claims Act claims against Defendant." (Id.)

Fabula takes issue with AMR's responses to 10 discovery requests based on AMR's understanding of the scope of Phase 1.2 Fabula also argues that AMR improperly limited its production and responses to requests related to the retaliation claim to a narrow set of ambulance runs, contrary to the Court's order.3

A. Scope of Phase I Discovery

The parties dispute the scope of the phrase "specific claims and ambulance runs" in the scheduling order. (ECF No. 120.) AMR argues that the Phase I discovery is limited to the individual instances in which Fabula was ordered to falsify a PCR in connection with an ambulance run described in the complaint (the "Subject Transports"). Fabula contends that the phrase "specific claims and ambulance runs" also encompasses the broader schemes intended to increase the proportion of Medicare-reimbursable ambulance runs or the amount of reimbursement for each run. (E.g., ECF No. 105 ¶ 134-136; 139.) I adopt AMR's view. The footnote in the Second Circuit's opinion on which this discovery plan was based suggested limiting discovery to specific "cases," a term the court used to refer to particular ambulance runs and the requests for payment associated with those runs. See Am. Med. Response, Inc., 865 F.3d at 87 ("While invoice numbers and the dates of their submission would undoubtedly have put AMR on notice of specific claims allegedly submitted to the government, so do details provided in the TAC (such as dates of runs, patient names, actual reasons for the transport, and the information entered into PCRs) with respect to specific runs for which false claims were submitted . . . . [B]y alleging with particularity AMR's scheme to falsify PCRs in order to qualify runs as medically necessary, and identifying particular cases in which that scheme was carried out, Fabula [has satisfied Rule 9(b)]"). Although language in the parties' conference report used the word "claims" instead of "cases," I find that the most reasonable reading of that term in this context is the meaning ascribed by the FCA. See 31 U.S.C.¶ 3729(b)(2) (defining "claims" in the FCA as a "request or demand . . . for money or property").

The parties also dispute the scope of discovery in Phase I for Fabula's retaliation claims. Fabula suggests that he was terminated because he opposed AMR's broad scheme to defraud Medicaid and Medicare. He thus contends that he should be allowed discovery on the entire scheme. As alleged in the complaint, though, his retaliation claim is relatively narrow: he claims that he was terminated because he refused to falsify a specific PCR from December 2011. (ECF No. 105 ¶¶ 50-75.) Indeed, the Second Circuit held that Fabula successfully pled a claim for retaliation by alleging that he was terminated for "refusing to falsify a single PCR." Am. Med. Response, Inc., 865 F.3d at 96. In Phase I, then, discovery relating to the retaliation claim is properly limited to the events surrounding Mr. Fabula's refusal to alter the form and the subsequent decision to terminate his employment.

With these general clarifications of the scope of Phase I discovery in mind, I turn to the parties' specific disputes.

1. Relator's First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 4

AMR's response to No. 3 is clear and complete. Fabula asks whether AMR used software that automatically indicated a paramedic assessment had been conducted or required entry of "bed-confined" to complete PCRs. AMR denies that the software it used had those characteristics. Interrogatory No. 4 is conditional, requiring a response only if the answer to No. 3 is affirmative. Given AMR's denial to No. 3, it has no obligation to reply further to No. 4. Fabula does not indicate how these responses are deficient.

2. Relator's First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12

AMR's objections on the basis that Request Nos. 11 and 12 exceed the scope of discovery for Phase I are SUSTAINED. Fabula requests documents relating to "paramedic assessment" or "bed-confined" software features and any review or audit of claims submitted for reimbursement that used those features. As noted, Phase I discovery is limited to the specific ambulance runs ("Subject Transports") alleged in the complaint as well as retaliation and judicial estoppel. The software features are relevant only to the broader scheme that Fabula alleges and do not pertain directly to the particular ambulance runs identified in the FAC. As a result, although AMR has indicated that it will produce certain training documents in response to Request for Production No. 11, it has no obligation during Phase I to turn over any documents in response to Request for Production Nos. 11 or 12. Further, Request for Production No. 12 is conditioned on an affirmative response to Interrogatory No. 4, to which AMR responded in the negative.

3. Relator's Second Set of Interrogatories for Production Nos. 2 and 3

AMR's objections on the basis that Request Nos. 2 and 3 exceed the scope of Phase I are SUSTAINED. Fabula seeks identification of "all PCRs for AMR Ambulance Transports in Connecticut that were amended, corrected or rewritten in 2010 and 2011." AMR also requests identification of all PCRs that Mr. Fabula was instructed to alter. Those requests exceed the limits set out in the Court's order. Phase I is limited to Subject Transports, retaliation, and judicial estoppel. AMR meets its obligation by providing PCRs for the Subject Transports alleged with specificity in the complaint. As noted, the retaliation claim is limited to a specific PCR relating to an ambulance run in December 2011, and the FAC indicates that Fabula refused to alter that PCR.

4. Relator's Second Request for Product Nos. 15,17,21, and 22

AMR's objections on the basis that Request Nos. 15, 17, 21, and 22 exceed the scope of Phase I are SUSTAINED. Each of these requests is relevant only to the broader scheme Fabula alleges, but they are not relevant to the Subject Transports. Fabula may be entitled to discovery on these issues in Phase II discovery.

5. Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-6; Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 7-10 and 12; Relator's First set of Requests for Production Nos. 14 and 15

Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 1-6 and Relator's Requests for Production Nos. 14 and 15 on the basis that the requests exceed the scope of Phase I are SUSTAINED. These requests seek information related to AMR's alleged general practice of changing PCRs to obtain reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid. This goes well beyond both the Subject Transports and the communications about the December 2011 PCR that are the subject of the retaliation claim.

Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Production Nos. 7-10 and 12 are SUSTAINED for the same reason. These requests ask AMR to turn over documents related to Interrogatories Nos. 1-6.

6. Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 17 and 18

Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Production Nos. 17 and 18 are SUSTAINED. The requests are unduly burdensome and exceed the scope of Phase I. Phase I discovery is limited to the Subject Transports and the communications concerning the specific PCR that Fabula allegedly refused to alter. AMR meets its obligation by producing the PCRs related to the Subject Transports and the PCR that Fabula was allegedly ordered to falsify (and related communications, see FAC ¶¶ 50-75). AMR is not obligated in this phase to provide broader statistics about billing rates across its Connecticut branches or alleged efforts to increase the proportion of ambulance runs reimbursable by Medicare or Medicaid.

III. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES UNDER SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 127)

The motion for an extension of the deadlines in the Second Amended Scheduling Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Phase I discovery deadline shall be extended by 30 days to October 12, 2018. Defendant shall then have 30 days to file any dispositive motion based on Phase I discovery (due by November 12, 2018).

I note that I have no view on the merits of any potential motion for summary judgment in this case. As discussed during the recent oral argument, however, the limited discovery available in Phase I will leave Defendant with a heavy burden. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 201 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2000) (The nonmoving party must have had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. . . . Only in the rarest of cases may summary judgment be granted against a plaintiff who has not been afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery.") (internal citations and quotations omitted).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Re: U.S. ex rel. Paul Fabula v. American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-921 (MPS)

Dear Judge Shea:

We represent the Relator-Plaintiff Paul Fabula ("Fabula") in this action. This letter summarizes the discovery dispute discussed with the Court on August 6, 2018. We have conferred in good faith with counsel for defendant American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc. ("AMR") in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37(a) in an attempt to resolve these issues.

Under the Court's Amending Scheduling Order, "Phase I" discovery includes "(1) the specific claims and ambulance runs identified in the operative complaint; (2) Fabula's retaliation claim. . . ." (Doc. No. 120 at 1). AMR takes the position that Phase I is strictly limited to a narrow set of ambulance runs contained in the Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC") (Doc. No. 105) that it claims it can identify, and has refused to produce the following discovery pertaining to specific claims in the FAC, and the scheme underlying AMR's false billing practices and retaliation in terminating Fabula.

"Paramedic Assessment" (a/k/a "ALS Assessment") and "Bed Confined" Information

This action alleges that AMR was engaged in a scheme to overbill Government Payors for ambulance runs. See Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Doc. No. 105, passim. For each ambulance run, AMR paramedics and EMTs create a Patient Care Report ("PCR") using a proprietary software program, which is used for billing purposes. The FAC alleges, in part, that AMR set up its software for a period of time to require that certain services (Paramedic/ALS Assessments) and certain patient conditions (Bed Confined) be entered to inflate billing (see FAC at 132-39).1

Fabula seeks information and documents to demonstrate the use of and modification to the software described above, the PCRs (including addenda) created using the software, and the claims submitted to Government Payors as a result. See Relator's Second Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 2 and 3 and Relator's Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents ("RFP") Nos. 15, 17, 21 and 22; see also

Relator's First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 4 and Relator's First RFP Nos. 11 and 12. AMR's position is that these requests are beyond the scope of Phase I discovery, even though they pertain to Fabula's specific claims in this action.2

Retaliation Discovery and Requests Pertaining to AMR's Connecticut Operations

The FAC alleges that Fabula was subjected to retaliation (and terminated) because of his acts in opposition and to prevent AMR's submission of false claims as part of its scheme. (FAC at ¶¶ 50-75, 156-159). Fabula served discovery requests to demonstrate the scheme, in particular, information and documents concerning the amended, corrected or rewritten PCRs (including addenda) created by AMR and by Fabula, audit trails for the PCRs, the names of personnel who prepared, reviewed or directed the preparation of such PCRs, and the claims submitted to Government Payors for reimbursement as a result. See Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-6 and Plaintiff's First RFP Nos. 7-10, 12, 18. Again, AMR has limited its production to the narrow set of ambulance runs, but that representation appears incorrect as discussed below.3

In addition, Fabula, in his capacity as Relator and as Plaintiff, served discovery requests to demonstrate the effects of the scheme on AMR's Connecticut operations (and motives for the scheme), seeking information and documents concerning Government Payor billings at AMR's Connecticut facilities in relation to all AMR facilities (including the number and amount of claims billed), and AMR's efforts to increase such billings at Connecticut facilities. See Relator's First RFP Nos. 14 and 15 and Plaintiff's First RFP Nos. 17 and 18. AMR has refused to produce information or documents, other than pertaining to its New Haven operations and, to the extent anything has been produced, there is no information about the number or amount of claims to Government Payors.4

Further, the parties have had ongoing negotiations over AMR's billing records, in particular, the actual bills submitted to Government Payors. AMR has only recently produced certain summary information concerning the narrow set of ambulance runs discussed above, and we are reviewing that information. More importantly, we have just learned through ongoing depositions that additional responsive documentation concerning Fabula's claims exists, which AMR has not produced, including audit trail documents for AMR's PCRs (showing when and how PCRs were amended and addenda created) and daily "Medical Necessity Reports" regarding Government Payor billing from AMR's corporate billing instructing that PCRs be amended and/or addenda created for billing purposes. Respectfully, Fabula reserves the right to seek to compel additional documentation given these recent developments.

We stand ready to provide additional information that the Court deems necessary. Thank you for your consideration.

ADDENDUM OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS

RELATOR'S-PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS AT ISSUE

RELATOR'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

State whether at any time during 2010 or 2011 software utilized by AMR personnel involved in preparing PCRs for Ambulance Transports in Connecticut that

a. contained an auto-fill, default or similar feature with respect to the entry on the PCR of whether a paramedic assessment had been performed or a required entry that a paramedic assessment had been performed in order to complete the PCR;

b. required entry of "bed-confined" in order to complete the PCR.

RESPONSE NO. 3

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that the software utilized by Defendant EMTs or paramedics in preparing PCRs for Ambulance Transports in Connecticut did not contain an auto-fill or default feature which auto-filled the "paramedic assessment" field on the PCR, nor did it require that the PCR indicate that a paramedic assessment had been performed before the PCR could be completed. The software also did not require any entry of "bed-confined" before the PCR could be completed.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

If the answer to Interrogatory No. 3a or 3b is in the affirmative,

a. state the period during which either or both of such software features were in use;

b. identify all claims for reimbursement of Ambulance Transport services submitted by AMR to any Government Payor during the period that the paramedic assessment or bed-confined features were in use;

c. describe all actions taken by AMR to verify, with respect to all claims identified in paragraph 4b, that there was a proper basis to charge the Government Payor for a paramedic assessment or to assert, as a basis for the claim that the patient being transported was bedconfined;

d. identify all person(s) involved in implementing or changing either of such software features or auditing the claims submitted to any Government Payor while either of such features was in use.

ANSWER NO. 4

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phased. Defendant objects to Interrogatories 4b and 4c as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to Interrogatory 4d as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent that it is not limited by individuals.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that neither the answer to Interrogatory No. 3a nor 3b is in the affirmative, and therefore no response is required.

RELATOR'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST NO. 11

All documents pertaining to the "paramedic assessment" or "bed-confined" software features utilized by AMR in 2010 or 2011 in connection with the preparation of PCRs for Ambulance Transports in Connecticut, including, without limitation, any such documents pertaining to a change in the software with respect to such features and any review or audit of AMR's claims to Government Payors for payment of claims containing charges with respect to either of such features.

RESPONSE NO. 11

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request is impermissibly vague, as it is unclear what is meant by "the `paramedic assessment' or `bed-confined' software features utilized by Defendant in 2010 or 2011," and what "change" is referred to in this Request. See Answers to Interrogatory 3 and 4, supra. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it documents relating to "any review or audit of AMR's claims to Government Payors for payment of claims containing charges with respect to [bed confinement or paramedic assessment."

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce nonprivileged documents relating to training on ePCRs that references these specific fields and any audits or investigations from Government Payors relating to the use of these specific fields, to the extent any such documents are reasonably accessible and exist in its possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 12

All documents pertaining to any claims identified in answer to Interrogatory 4b including all documents submitted to or received from a Government Payor in connection with any such claim, and all records of payment of any such claims.

RESPONSE NO. 12

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attomey-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, because neither the answer to Interrogatory No. 3a nor 3b is in the affirmative, there are no claims to identified in the answer to Interrogatory 4b and therefore no documents responsive to this Request.

REQUEST NO. 14

All documents pertaining to any review of Government Payor billings in 2010 or 2011 at AMR facilities, including, without limitation, any such documents comparing the rates of such billings at various AMR facilities or discussing or reviewing the rate of such billings at AMR's Connecticut facilities.

RESPONSE NO. 14

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request as impermissibly vague, overly broad and ambiguous because of its use of and failure to specifically identify or define the terms "review" and "rates." Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request for the New Haven facility, to the extent any such documents are reasonably accessible and exist in its possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 15

All documents pertaining to AMR's efforts to increase the rate of Government Payor billings for Ambulance Transports in Connecticut in 2010 or 2011.

RESPONSE NO. 15

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Request as impermissibly vague, overly broad and ambiguous because of its use of and failure to specifically identify or define the term "rate of Government Payor billings."

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request for the New Haven facility, to the extent any such documents exist are reasonably accessible and in its possession, custody, or control.

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

Identify all persons who prepared or participated in the preparation or review of PCRs for AMR ambulance transports in Connecticut in 2010 and 2011, specifying, for each such person, whether that person was requested or directed by AMR in 2010 and 2011 to amend, correct or rewrite any of the PCRs he or she prepared.

RESPONSE NO. 1

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, especially as it seeks information regarding "all persons who prepared or participated in the preparation or review of PCRs for Defendant ambulance transports in Connecticut" over a two year period over the entire state of Connecticut.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that in general, PCRs are created by EMTs or paramedics after they complete a run. After a PCR is completed and submitted, the EMT or paramedic who submitted the PCR will be asked to supplement a PCR if clarification is required or if the information provided on the original PCR is insufficient to fully describe the run, including but not limited to the condition of the patient. When asked to supplement such PCRs, the EMTs or paramedics generally received a copy of the PCR returned to them and/or notes identifying the issues in the PCR that required clarification or supplementation. EMTs and paramedics were never directed what to say in any PCR or addenda, and were instead directed to create PCRs and any addenda thereto in their own words. Any changes made electronically to the PCR would be reflected in the addenda which would be appended to the original PCR. Both the original PCR and any addenda thereto were maintained electronically by Defendant.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

Identify all PCRs for AMR Ambulance Transports in Connecticut that were amended, corrected or rewritten in 2010 and 2011.

RESPONSE NO. 2

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I, which concerns only the Ambulance Transports alleged with specificity in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as it asks for "amended, corrected or rewritten" PCRs, as it misstates the facts concerning the creation of and addenda to PCRs.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), it will produce PCRs for Ambulance Transports alleged with specificity in the Fourth Amended Complaint that have been supplemented by addenda to the extent that such transports can be identified.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

Identify all PCRs that Mr. Fabula was requested or directed to amend, correct or rewrite, and specify

a. the date on which such request or direction was communication [sic] to Mr. Fabula;

RESPONSE NO. 3

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited by any time period. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory as it asks for "PCRs that Mr. Fabula was requested or directed to amend, correct, or rewrite," as it misstates the facts concerning the creation of and addenda to PCRs.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), it will produce all PCRs for Ambulance Transports alleged with specificity in the Fourth Amended Complaint that have been supplemented by addenda to the extent that such transports can be identified. Answering further, Defendant incorporates its answer to Interrogatory No. 1, above.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

Identify all claims for reimbursement submitted by AMR to a Government Payor in regard to each Ambulance Transport that was the subject of a PCR identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 2 or 3, and specify whether each such claim was paid.

RESPONSE NO. 4

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that it has not as of yet been able to identify the Ambulance Transports alleged with specificity in the Fourth Amended Complaint, and therefore have not been able to locate a claim for reimbursement for those runs.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5

For each PCR identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2 or 3:

RESPONSE NO. 5

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase 1. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant incorporates its response to Interrogatory 1, supra. Answering further, Defendant responds that it does not retain the information requested in this Interrogatory as a general business practice since any changes made electronically to the PCR would be reflected in the addenda which would be appended to the original PCR.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6

Identify all persons

RESPONSE NO. 6

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant immaterial, or not germane to any claim or defense in this action. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant incorporates its response to Interrogatory 1, supra. Answering further, Defendant responds that it does not retain the information requested in this Interrogatory as a general business practice since any changes made electronically to the PCR would be reflected in the addenda which would be appended to the original PCR.

The determination of whether PCRs need an addenda is made by transportation authorization staff in the specific facility that the run was generated from.

Answering further, Defendant responds that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), it will produce all PCRs for Ambulance Transports alleged with specificity in the Fourth Amended Complaint that have been supplemented with addenda, to the extent that such transports can be identified.

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST NO. 4

All documents pertaining to Mr. Fabula's employment by AMR, including all documents pertaining to the termination of his employment or any other adverse employment action threatened or taken against Mr. Fabula, including any warning, suspension or imposition of administrative leave.

RESPONSE NO. 4

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, to the extent any such documents exist in its possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 7

All PCRs identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2.

RESPONSE NO. 7

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I, which concerns only the Ambulance Transports alleged with specificity in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the limitations set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant will produce the PCRs and any related documents identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, to the extent any such documents are reasonably accessible and exist in its possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 8

The original version of all PCRs identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2 and the audit trail pertaining to any changes to the original or any subsequent versions of all such PCRs.

RESPONSE NO. 8

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant immaterial, or not germane to any claim or defense in this action. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous because of its use of and failure to specifically identify or define the term "audit trail." Defendant further objects as the Request asks for "original [] PCRs" as it misstates the facts concerning the creation of and addenda to PCRs.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the limitations set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant will produce the PCRs and any related documents identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, to the extent any such documents are reasonably accessible and exist in its possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 9

All PCRs identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3.

RESPONSE NO. 9

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it is not limited by any time period.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the limitations set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 3, Defendant will produce the PCRs and any related documents identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3, to the extent any such documents are reasonably accessible and exist in its possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 10

The original version of all PCRs identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 and the audit trail pertaining to any changes to the original version or any subsequent versions of all such PCRs.

RESPONSE NO. 10

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant immaterial, or not germane to any claim or defense in this action. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous because of its use of and failure to specifically define the term "audit trail." Defendant further objects as the Request asks for "original [] PCRs" as it misstates the facts concerning the creation of and addenda to PCRs.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the limitations set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 3, Defendant will produce the PCRs and any related documents identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3, to the extent any such documents are reasonably accessible exist in its possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 12

All claims identified in answer to Interrogatory 4.

RESPONSE NO. 12

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant immaterial, or not germane to any claim or defense in this action.

REQUEST NO. 15

All documents pertaining to Mr. Fabula's application for unemployment compensation benefits, including without limitation all documents prepared by AMR in connection therewith and all documents submitted to or received by AMR in connection with the unemployment compensation benefit proceedings.

RESPONSE NO. 15

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, to the extent any such documents are reasonably accessible and exist in its possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 17

All documents setting forth information about the number of claims submitted to a Government Payor by AMR in 2010 or 2011 for Ambulance Transports performed in Connecticut, including a comparison of the percentage of the overall transports billed by AMR's facilities, any discussion of increasing the percentage of AMR's Connecticut claims to Government Payor, and the amount of such claims.

RESPONSE NO. 17

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Request because it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request as impermissibly vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.

REQUEST NO. 18

All documents setting forth information about the claims submitted to a Government Payor in 2010 or 2011 involving Ambulance Transports as to which Mr. Fabula prepared a PCR, including any document setting forth or reviewing the number or amount of such claims.

RESPONSE NO. 18

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and materials that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other protection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as impermissibly vague because of its use of and failure to specifically identify or define the term "the number or amount of such claims."

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce nonprivileged documents setting forth information about the claims submitted to a Government Payor in 2010 or 2011 involving Ambulance Transports alleged with specificity in the Fourth Amended Complaint, to the extent that such transports can be identified, and as to which Mr. Fabula prepared a PCR, to the extent any such documents exist in its possession, custody, or control.

RELATOR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

State whether in 2010 or 2011, defendant caused any changes to be made to the software utilized by defendant in connection with the preparation of PCRs to modify the manner in which notations in the PCRs concerning "paramedic assessment" or "bed-confined" were entered or recorded, and, if so, describe fully any such changes, including the reasons for any such changes; identify the persons who directed that any such changes be made; and identify all documents pertaining to any such changes.

RESPONSE NO. 2

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant answers that from 2010 to late 2011, the New Haven branch of AMR used the MEDS version 2 software system to generate PCRs. On October 4, 2011, it switched to MEDS version 3. There is no "bed confined" field on a PCR in the relevant versions of MEDS. There is a field for "unable to travel by wheelchair" for which EMTs and paramedics may select yes or no. Defendant further answers that there is a paramedic assessment field on a PCR. For both MEDS version 2 and MEDS version 3 this field is also a drop down menu and there is no default selection.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

State for each month from February 2010 through February 2012,

RESPONSE TO NO. 3

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence.

RELATOR'S SECOND SET OF REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST NO. 15

All PCRs, including revised PCRs or PCR addenda, prepared in 2010 and 2011 that contained a positive notation for paramedic assessment.

RESPONSE NO. 15

Defendant objects to this Request as it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST NO. 17

All PCRs, including revised PCRs or PCR addenda, prepared in 2010 and 2011 that contained a positive notation for bed-confined.

RESPONSE NO. 17

Defendant objects to this Request as it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST NO. 21

All documents identified in response to Interrogatory 2.

RESPONSE NO. 21

Defendant objects to this Request as it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST NO. 22

All documents concerning any modifications in 2010 or 2011 to the software utilized by defendant in the preparation of PCRs.

RESPONSE NO. 22

Defendant objects to this Request as it exceeds the scope of discovery for Phase I. Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Re: USA ex ref Fabula v. AMR, Conn., CV 12-CV-921-MPS

Dear Judge Shea:

Pursuant to the Court's Instructions for Discovery Disputes and the August 6, 2018 conference with Mr. Self, American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc. ("AMR") responds to Relator-Plaintiff's disputes concerning the scope of Phase I discovery. The September 19, 2017 Scheduling Order limits Phase I discovery to "(1) the specific claims1 and ambulance runs identified in the operative Complaint; (2) Fabula's retaliation claim; and (3) whether Mr. Fabula is judicially estopped from recovering on the False Claims Act." (Dkt. 102.) These limitations were jointly proposed to, and adopted by, the Court following the direction of the Second Circuit, which in considering AMR's Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) challenge to Relator-Plaintiff Fabula's Third Amended Complaint directed "[w]here a qui tam relator identifies representative examples of false claims or, as here, makes allegations leading to a strong inference that specifies false claims were submitted, defendants could initially be required to provide discovery only with respect to cases identified in the complaint." Second Circuit Opinion at p. 36, n.13 (emphasis added). These limitations were put in place to require that Fabula prove his allegations concerning those transports alleged with specificity in the operative Complaint (the "Subject Transports") before subjecting AMR to even broader, more expensive, and more coercive generalized discovery. Despite this direction and the Scheduling Order's clear terms, Fabula seeks to improperly expand discovery beyond Phase I.

1. Relator is Not Entitled to Additional Information Regarding "Paramedic Assessment" and "Bed-Confined" Designations, Not Related to Subject Transports.2 AMR has produced all documents regarding the Subject Transports, as well as documents and Interrogatory Responses regarding the "paramedic assessment" and "bed-confined" fields in the "MEDS" software system at issue. Fabula's attempt to obtain broad and burdensome discovery concerning multiple ambulance runs not related to the Subject Transports that may also include these fields should be rejected.

AMR has produced all of the Patient Care Reports ("PCRs"), including any "addenda" by which any changes were made to PCRs, for those Subject Transports it was able to identify. These documents enable Fabula to determine whether a patient was bed-confined or a paramedic assessment was conducted during a Subject Transport and therefore pursue his Phase I claims. AMR has also produced numerous documents and Interrogatory Responses regarding MEDS, the software program used to generate PCRs, including those fields. Fabula's assertion that he is entitled to discovery regarding every ambulance run having to do with "paramedic assessment" or "bedconfined" should be rejected.3

2. Discovery Is Properly Limited to the New Haven Facility.4 Fabula worked at AMR's New Haven facility, the Subject Transports were dispatched from there, the relevant PCRs were submitted there, and the alleged improper instructions to alter PCRs were allegedly given there. AMR has produced documents, including emails, responsive to the subject Requests concerning the New Haven facility. There is no basis to dramatically expand the scope of discovery to the rest of Connecticut, especially at this late date.5

3. AMR Has Fully Responded To Relator's Other Disputed Requests and There is Nothing to Compel. As AMR has informed Relator, it has produced all Disputed responsive documents related to Subject Transports, notwithstanding the burden of attempting to identify them from Fabula's inaccurate descriptions.6 AMR has also produced all information in its possession, custody, or control in response to the other Requests regarding which Fabula now seeks to compel additional discovery, or specifically informed Fabula that none exist.7 There is nothing to compel for these Requests.