Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`In re Subpoena of South Broward Hospital District :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Case No.
`
`
`INTEGRITY HEALTH ADMINISTRATORS LLC’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
`TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
`
`Integrity Health Administrators LLC respectfully submits this Motion to Quash Subpoena
`
`to Produce Documents and Information pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and
`
`45(d), as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law.
`
`WHEREFORE, Integrity Health Administrators LLC respectfully requests that this Court
`
`grant its Motion and quash the Subpoena.
`
`
`
`DEVINE TIMONEY LAW GROUP
`
`
`BY:_______________________________
`PATRICK C. TIMONEY, ESQUIRE
`ATTORNEYS FOR INTEGRITY HEALTH
`ADMINISTRATORS LLC
`Veva 14, Suite 404
`1777 Sentry Parkway West
`Blue Bell, PA 19422
`610-400-1970
` ptimoney@devinetimoney.com
`
`
`Dated: September 13, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Memorandum of Law
`
`I.
`
`i
`
`1
`
`1
`
`4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`5
`
`6
`
`6
`
`7
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
`
`VENUE
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`a.
`
`b.
`The Subpoena Must Be Quashed Because It Requires Compliance
`Outside of the Geographical Limits of Rule 45(c)
`
`c.
`Plaintiff Should be Sanctioned for Serving a Subpoena
`for the Sole Purpose of Harassment
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Factual Background Regarding Movant
`
`The Subpoena
`
`
`
`Standard of Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 3
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`F.R.C.P. 45(d)(3)(A)
`
`F.R.C.P. 45(c)(2)(A)
`
`F.R.C.P. 26(g)
`
`Cases
`
`Vision Power, LLC v. Midnight Express Power Boats, Inc.,
`2020 WL 808284 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2020)
`
`
`
`In re Outlaw Labs, LP Litig, 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS 175558; 2020 WL 5709386
`
`Night Hawk Ltd. v. Briarpatch Ltd., 03 Civ. 1382, 2003 WL 23018833
`(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003)
`
`Salvatorie Studios, Int'l v. Mako's, Inc., 01 Civ. 4430, 2001 WL 913945,
`(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2001)
`
`Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse–Coopers LLP, 2008 WL 4452134
`(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2008)
`
`John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1–30, 284 F.R.D. 185, 189 (S.D.N.Y.2012)
`
`Pegoraro v. Marrero, No. 10 Civ. 0051, 2012 WL 1948887 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2012)
`
`Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Meehan, No. CV 05–4807, 2008 WL 2746373
`(E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2008)
`
`Sea Tow Int'l, Inc. v. Pontin, 246 F.R.D. 421, 424 (E.D.N.Y.2007)
`
`Heller v. City of Dall., 303 F.R.D. 466, 477 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
`
`Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 358 (D. Md. 2008)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4, 6
`
`7
`
`7, 8
`
`2
`
`4
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`7
`
`7
`
`8
`
`8
`
` 
`
`i 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`In re Subpoena of South Broward Hospital District :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Case No.
`
`
`INTEGRITY HEALTH ADMINISTRATORS LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH
`
`
`INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
`
`I.
`
`This Motion to Quash relates to a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States
`
`District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 21, 2020. A copy of the underlying
`
`Amended Complaint is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.” The Defendants in that matter are ELAP
`
`Services, LLP (“ELAP”), a health care cost containment company that offers group health plans a
`
`referenced based pricing program, and Group & Pension Administrators, Inc. (“GPA”), a type of
`
`professional services business that is commonly referred to as a third party administrator (“TPA”)
`
`that offers administrative services to health plans. GPA is hired by self-insured employers, and
`
`other self-insured health plans to review, process and pay medical bills on behalf of the plan.
`
`Typically, self-insured plans have a fiduciary obligation to preserve Plan funds in the
`
`administration and payment of claims. Consistent with this fiduciary obligation, health plans retain
`
`service providers, such as ELAP, to review and audit medical bills submitted by healthcare
`
`providers to the TPA for payment by the health plan involved. ELAP evaluates hospital bills to
`
`determine the fair and reasonable amount of reimbursement for the goods and services actually
`
`provided.
`
`The need for self-insured employers and health plans to retain companies such as ELAP to
`
`implement referenced based pricing programs arose in response to the phenomenon of rampant
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 5
`
`overbilling by healthcare providers whereby hospitals and other medical providers charge and seek
`
`to collect wildly excessive amounts for goods and services that bear no relationship whatsoever to
`
`their market value or reasonable value.
`
` The plaintiff in the underlying action is a hospital system located in Miami, Florida that
`
`seeks to shut down employers’ and self-insured health plans’ access to essential information about
`
`the fair and reasonable amount that should be charged for a particular medical procedure by
`
`seeking to attack those involved in the auditing process. In this case, plaintiff South Broward
`
`Hospital District, d/b/a Memorial Healthcare System (“South Broward” or “Plaintiff”), alleges that
`
`ELAP and GPA deceived South Broward into providing health care to patients by indicating the
`
`patients’ plans would pay a higher reimbursement rate than they ultimately paid; however, in the
`
`only transaction identified in the pleadings, ELAP and GPA established through uncontroverted,
`
`unequivocal evidence that they told South Broward exactly the rate of reimbursement that would
`
`be paid. See South Broward Hospital District v. ELAP & GPA, No. 0:20-cv-61007, at ECF 16-6
`
`& 16-7 (S.D. Fla). Although South Broward has asserted putative class action claims for violations
`
`of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) and unjust enrichment, the
`
`Southern District of Florida has not certified any class in the case.1
`
`                                                            
`1 It is important to understand that the Plaintiff has the legal right and ability to seek to collect a fair and reasonable
`price for medical services rendered, yet it does not seek to support that any of its apparently adversely audited bills
`were fair and reasonable: rather it seeks to abolish the practice of auditing altogether. Further, although the claims
`audit and payment process involves a unique set of codes, services and treatments for each patient, and invariably
`involves medical bills of vastly different magnitude and complexity, Plaintiff alleges that its cause of action is so
`representative of the harms faced by all healthcare providers nationally that a class action lawsuit is the appropriate
`vehicle for redress. In order to establish a viable class action, Plaintiff would have to satisfy the five-fold requirements
`of: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, (4) adequacy, and (5) ascertainability.” See Vision Power, LLC v.
`Midnight Express Power Boats, Inc., 2020 WL 808284, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2020). Plaintiff has not yet moved
`for class certification. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 6
`
` On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff served the subject subpoena upon Integrity Health
`
`Administrators LLC (hereinafter “Movant”), a non-party to the class action, seeking production of
`
`an extremely broad range of information, in a format in which the data does not exist, and which
`
`seeks to reveal extremely private, confidential and statutorily-protected personal information and
`
`personal health information of thousands of individuals from locations across the country who
`
`have no connection whatsoever to any hospital in Miami, or even in the state of Florida. A copy
`
`of the Subpoena served upon non-party Integrity Health Administrators LLC is attached hereto as
`
`“Exhibit B.” A quick review of the subpoena reflects that it is breathtaking in its scope and in its
`
`attempt to access the person information of thousands of complete strangers to the subject action.
`
`Movant has not engaged in any business since its formation as a New Jersey corporation.
`
`See Affidavit of Ed MacQueen, attached as “Exhibit C,” at ¶ 8. Movant has never in its existence
`
`engaged with any third-party healthcare claims administrators or with ELAP. Id. at ¶ 9.
`
`Integrity Health LLC, an active business, is a health plan manager, but it has never been a
`
`third-party claims administrator and does not process bills and payments for services rendered to
`
`medical patients. Id. at ¶ 8. Integrity Health LLC connects health plans with third-party
`
`administrators, but does not directly or indirectly process claims itself. Id. In their regular course
`
`of business, both Movant and Integrity Health LLC do not, and would not, engage in any activity
`
`in which they would obtain the information sought in the subpoena and do not possess such
`
`information. Id. at ¶ 11. Neither Movant nor Integrity Health LLC possess any of the information
`
`requested. Id. at ¶ 13.
`
`Plaintiff’s blatant failure to investigate Movant’s business or to make any investigation to
`
`determine whether it may possess any information relevant to the lawsuit demonstrates the
`
`subpoena was not served for a legitimate purpose. Rather, the subpoena was served with the sole
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 7
`
`and express purpose of harassing Movant and/or the defendants in the underlying action. An
`
`identical subpoena was served on numerous other third-parties in the underlying litigation. That
`
`is further evidence that Plaintiff has abused the discovery process by failing to tailor the requests
`
`in the subpoena to information which Movant may possess.
`
`Accordingly, Movant objects and seeks an Order from the Court quashing the subpoena.
`
`Further, due to Plaintiff’s failure to engage in good faith discovery, its counsel must be sanctioned
`
`to compensate Movant for the legal fees and expenses incurred in filing the within Motion to
`
`Quash.
`
`II.
`
`VENUE
`
`The Subpoena was served upon at the following address: Corporation Service Company,
`
`2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103 Harrisburg, PA 17110. As prepared, it is defective on its face and
`
`must be quashed because the location where it commands production is in Miami, Florida. See
`
`“Exhibit B.” Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a Motion to Quash a
`
`non-party subpoena must be filed in “the court for the district where compliance is required.” Rule
`
`45(d)(3)(A). Further, pursuant to Rule 45, the “place of compliance” for a non-party subpoena for
`
`“documents, electronically stored information and tangible things” is “a place within 100 miles of
`
`where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” The Advisory
`
`Committee Notes to the 2013 Amendments to Rule 45 make clear that the goal is “to protect local
`
`non-parties, local resolution of disputes about subpoenas is assured by the limitations of Rule
`
`45(c) and the requirements in Rules 45(d) and (e) that motions be made in the court in which
`
`compliance is required under Rule 45(c).” In re Outlaw Labs, LP Litig, 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS
`
`175558; 2020 WL 5709386 (citing rule 45 advisory notes) (emphasis added).   
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 8
`
`Here, the Movant’s principal place of business is 76 West Gilbert Street, Red Bank, New
`
`Jersey 07701. See Affidavit of Ed MacQueen, attached hereto as “Exhibit C,” at ¶ 2. Therefore,
`
`the proper venue for filing the Motion to Quash is in the District of New Jersey.
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`ELAP, one of the defendants in the underlying class action lawsuit, contracts exclusively
`
`with self-insured and employer-funded medical plans to audit medical bills so that the plans do not
`
`erroneously pay an inappropriate or exorbitant sum for medical treatment rendered. Movant is a
`
`health care company and does not process any claims. It is assumed that Movant was served with
`
`a subpoena because it has conducted business with ELAP or ELAP’s customers. Movant does not
`
`and has never possessed any of the information sought in the subpoena.
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background Regarding Movant
`
`Movant has not engaged in any business since its formation as a New Jersey corporation.
`
`See Affidavit of Ed MacQueen, attached as “Exhibit C,” at ¶ 8. Movant has never in its existence
`
`engaged with any third-party healthcare claims administrators or with ELAP. Id. at ¶ 9. Integrity
`
`Health LLC, an active business, is a health plan manager, but it has never been a third-party claims
`
`administrator and does not process bills and payments for services rendered to medical patients.
`
`Id. at ¶ 8. Integrity Health LLC connects health plans with third-party administrators, but does not
`
`directly or indirectly process claims itself. Id.
`
`B.
`
`The Subpoena
`
`The subpoena broadly seeks that the defendant compile a report “in an Excel spreadsheet
`
`and CSV file” of virtually every piece of information collected by Movant relative to the
`
`processing of all healthcare bills and payments for individuals covered by self-funded health plans
`
`that have contracted with ELAP for a nearly six (6) year period from January 1, 2016 through the
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 9
`
`present. See “Exhibit B”. As noted above, Movant has never possessed any such information at
`
`any time.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Standard of Review
`
`Rule 45(d)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “On timely motion, the
`
`court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`Fails to allow reasonable time to comply
`
`Requires a person to comply with the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);
`
`(iii) Requires disclosure of privilege or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver
`
`applies; or
`
`(iv)
`
`Subjects a person to undue burden.
`
`If any one of the above factors applies, the Rule is mandatory that the subpoena must be quashed
`
`on modified.
`
` “The party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that the information sought is relevant
`
`and material to the allegations and claims at issue in the proceedings.” Night Hawk Ltd. v.
`
`Briarpatch Ltd., 03 Civ. 1382, 2003 WL 23018833, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003); see also
`
`Salvatorie Studios, Int'l v. Mako's, Inc., 01 Civ. 4430, 2001 WL 913945, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14,
`
`2001). If relevance is established, the party seeking to quash a subpoena bears the burden of
`
`demonstrating that the subpoena “is over-broad, duplicative, or unduly burdensome.” Kingsway
`
`Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse–Coopers LLP, 2008 WL 4452134, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2,
`
`2008) see John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe Nos. 1–30, 284 F.R.D. 185, 189 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (citing
`
`Pegoraro v. Marrero, No. 10 Civ. 0051, 2012 WL 1948887, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2012)); Ford
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 10
`
`Motor Credit Co. v. Meehan, No. CV 05–4807, 2008 WL 2746373, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2008)
`
`(citing Sea Tow Int'l, Inc. v. Pontin, 246 F.R.D. 421, 424 (E.D.N.Y.2007)).
`
`B.
`
`The Subpoena Must Be Quashed Because It Requires Compliance Outside of
`the Geographical Limits of Rule 45(c)
`
`Rule 45(c)(2)(A) requires that a subpoena may command “production of documents,
`
`
`
`electronically stored information, or other tangible things as a place within 100 miles of where the
`
`person resides is employed or regularly transacts business in person.” Integrity Health
`
`Administrators LLC’s principal place of business is 76 West Gilbert Street, Red Bank, New Jersey.
`
`In preparing the subpoena, Plaintiff’s counsel totally ignored the rule and commands that the
`
`requested documents be produced at the law firms’ address in Miami Florida. See “Exhibit B.” It
`
`is undisputed that Miami, Florida is more than 100 miles away from Red Bank, New Jersey.
`
`Therefore, the subpoena must be quashed for failure to comply with the geographical limitations
`
`set forth in Rule 45(c)(2)(A).
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Should be Sanctioned for Serving a Subpoena for the Sole Purpose of
`Harassment
`
`The subpoena has absolutely no connection to Movant, a health plan manager which has
`
`no relationship to or involvement with ELAP. Plaintiff seeks personal health information in claims
`
`files, information which Movant has never possessed. The subpoena was served solely to harass
`
`Movant and the defendants in the underlying action, as it bears no relationship whatsoever to the
`
`work performed by Plaintiff in the underlying action. Plaintiff has therefore violated the good
`
`faith requirements of the discovery process detailed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
`
`explained below.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) mandates the signature and certification of discovery
`
`requests by a party. In relevant part, the Rule states that:
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 11
`
`(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every … discovery request, response
`or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record … . By signing,
`an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge,
`information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:
`…
`(b) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:
` …
`not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
`
`(ii)
`unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
`(iii)
`neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive,
`considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in
`controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.
`
`…
`
`(3) Sanction for Improper Certification. If a certification violates this rule without
`substantial justification, the court, on motion or on its own, must impose an
`appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose behalf the signer was
`acting, or both. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable
`expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation.
`
`“Rule 26(g) was enacted ‘to eliminate one of the most prevalent of all discovery abuses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`kneejerk discovery requests served without consideration of cost or burden to the responding
`
`party.’” Heller v. City of Dall., 303 F.R.D. 466, 477 (N.D. Tex. 2014); citing Mancia v. Mayflower
`
`Textile Services. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 358 (D. Md. 2008). The subpoena served by Plaintiff was
`
`plainly served with the sole purpose of harassing Movant. There is no legitimate purpose for
`
`requesting documents from a company which has never been in the business of creating or
`
`maintaining them. In short, the subpoena is clearly in violation of the requirements of F.R.C.P.
`
`26(g)(1)(B)(ii) and (iii) relating to certification of the good faith nature of the document requests.
`
`Accordingly, sanctions should be imposed for these violations, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(g)(3).
`
`Movant requests that Plaintiff be sanctioned in an amount to be determined by the Court to
`
`reimburse Movant for its fees and costs.
`
`
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 12
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the Subpoena issued to
`
`Integrity Health Administrators LLC in the matter of South Broward Hospital District v. ELAP
`
`Services LLC and Group and Pension Administrators must be quashed and sanctions are awarded
`
`to cover the fees and expenses incurred in filing the motion.
`
` 
`
`
`
`Dated: September 13, 2021
` 
`
`DEVINE TIMONEY LAW GROUP
`
`
`BY:_______________________________
`PATRICK C. TIMONEY, ESQUIRE
`ATTORNEYS FOR INTEGRITY HEALTH
`ADMINISTRATORS LLC
`Veva 14, Suite 404
`1777 Sentry Parkway West
`Blue Bell, PA 19422
`610-400-1970
` ptimoney@devinetimoney.com
`
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-16871 Document 1 Filed 09/13/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I, Patrick C. Timoney, hereby certify that a copy of the Motion to Quash will be served on
`
`all counsel of record in the underlying litigation once the original pleading in this miscellaneous
`
`action is received from District of New Jersey.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`DEVINE TIMONEY LAW GROUP
`
`
`BY:_______________________________
`PATRICK C. TIMONEY, ESQUIRE
`
`1 
`
`