METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., Plaintiff v. ADVANCED SPINE CENTERS, INC. et al., Defendant Civil Action No. 1:07–cv–10746–RCL United States District Court, D. Massachusetts Signed January 30, 2009 Counsel Joseph R. Ciollo, Richard A. McGovern, McGovern & Ganem PC, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff. Francis A. Gaimari, Fireman & Associates LLP, Needham, MA, Carolyn L. McCaffrey, Frank P. Fitzgerald, P.C., Benjamin M. Coyle, Michael J. Coyne, Bacon & Wilson, P.C., Springfield, MA, Eve M. Slattery, Thomas E. Dwyer, Jr., Dwyer & Collora, LLP, Vincent A. Murray, Jr., Murray & Murray, Boston, MA, for Defendant. Alexander, Joyce London, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Docket Nos. 173, 174, 175 and 176) Relevant Background *1 The instant discovery motions pertain to a case involving an alleged fraudulent and / or negligent billing scheme carried out by the named corporate[1] and individual[2] defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”) in connection with the appropriateness, reasonableness, and necessity of medical, chiropractic and/or physical therapy treatments provided to their patients. The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Metropolitan”), paid unwarranted insurance benefits to the Defendants, their patients, bodily injury claimants and insureds, and other insurance carriers, resulting in a significant monetary loss to Metropolitan. Metropolitan asserts claims of: (1) common law fraud and deceit; (2) conspiracy to implement a common scheme to defraud; (3) negligent misrepresentation for filing false records, reports, and bills; (4) negligent supervision; (5) intentional interference with contract relations; (6) intentional interference with advantageous business relationships; and (7) unfair and deceptive trade practices. On October 2, 2008, Judge Lindsey referred the case to this Court for case management.[3] On October 28, 2008, the parties appeared before this Court for a hearing on various discovery motions. This Court ordered all parties and / or their counsel to meet for the purposes of preparing and submitting a Joint Memorandum of Law detailing the parties' respective positions on the contested discovery motions. As a result of the October hearing, the parties reached the following: A. Document Requests Propounded Upon Certain Corporate Defendants 1. The Defendants agreed to produce, within 30 days, the patient files relating to the individual patients identified in Metropolitan's initial disclosures. The Defendants' counsel indicated that any existing documents pertaining specifically to particular patients would be within said files. 2. The Defendants' counsel agreed to make another inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of employee and personnel files that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request Nos. 3, 25 and 35 to each of the corporate defendants. The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. *2 3. The Defendants' counsel agreed to produce, within 30 days, a copy of the applicable Current Procedural Terminology manual(s) as the responsive document(s) to Metropolitan's Request No. 14 to each of the corporate defendants. 4 The Defendants' counsel agreed to make another inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of documents that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request No. 19 to each of the corporate defendants. The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. 5. The Defendants' counsel agreed to make inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of “daily charge sheets”, or other such documents that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request No. 20 to each of the corporate defendants. The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. 6. The Defendants' counsel agreed to make inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of documents that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request Nos. 26–29 to each of the corporate defendants. The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. B. Document Requests Propounded Upon Frederick Giampa, Joseph Giampa And Treating Chiropractors, Physical Therapists and Physical Therapist Assistants 1. The Defendants' counsel agreed to make another inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of documents that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request No. 2 to each of the Giampas, the Defendant chiropractors, physical therapists (“PT's”) and physical therapist assistants (“PTA's”). The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. 2. The Defendants' counsel agreed to make another inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of professional license and driver's licenses that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request No. 6 to each of the Giampas, the Defendant chiropractors, physical therapists (“PT's”) and physical therapist assistants (“PTA's”). The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. 3. The Defendants' counsel agreed to make another inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of documents that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request No. 10 to each of the Giampas, the Defendant chiropractors, PT's, and PTA's. The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. 4. The Defendants' counsel agreed to make inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of documents that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request No. 25 to each of the Giampas, the Defendant chiropractors, PT's, and PTA's. The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. 5. The Defendants' counsel agreed to make inquiry of his clients, within 30 days, as to the existence of documents that would be responsive to Metropolitan's Request No. 29 to each of the Giampas, the Defendant chiropractors, PT's, and PTA's. The Defendants' counsel agreed to provide a further response to Metropolitan regarding the same within 30 days. *3 Four pending motions were discussed by counsel appearing at the discovery conference and the following motions remain in contention: 1. Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production Of Documents Against Defendants, Advanced Spine Centers, Inc. d/b/a First Spine & Rehab, Excel Physical Therapy, Inc., Admed Healthcare Corp., Brian Culliney, Frederick Giampa, Joseph Giampa, Sheila Ocasio, and John Reilly Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (Docket #173). 2. Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents Against Defendants, Associated Health Care Group, Inc., Future Management Corp., Grace Cater, Mark Czerniak, Lawrence Gray, John Klug, Jennifer McConnell, Kathleen O'Malley, Brian Sickorez, and Ian Simpson Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (Docket # 175). Discussion Metropolitan requests that this Court allow its Motions to Compel Production of Documents as to each and every Request delineated below, and order the subject Defendants to produce their responses to the same within twenty (20) days. In response, the Defendants assert that there is nothing left for the Defendants to produce beyond what they have already produced or offered to produce; therefore, the motions to compel must be denied. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, parties must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide other parties with the names of each individual likely to have discoverable information and copies or descriptions of all documents, electronically stored information (“ESI”), and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its control and may use to support its claims or defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i),(ii). Parties may also obtain discovery relating to any matter, not privileged, regarding the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any such discoverable information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In reviewing motions to compel, courts may, for good cause, order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action even if such information is not admissible at trial. Id. Similarly, the discovery of relevant information need only appear reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. I. Areas of Contention As To Document Requests Propounded Upon Corporate Defendants Metropolitan moves, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3), for an order requiring Defendants to produce for inspection and copying the following documents responsive to its requests for production:[4] A. Tax and Financial Account Information Request No. 1—“A complete copy of [the Defendants'] federal tax filings for the years 2001 through 2007, including but not limited to: tax returns, Schedule K–1s, W–2 Forms, Form 1099's, as well as any other documents required to be filed with the Internal Revenue Service for each year.” Request No. 7—“Any and all documents and ESI identifying each and every financial account maintained and/or used by [the Defendants] between January 1, 2001 and the present.” B. Documents Relating to Defendants' Internal Policies *4 Request No. 12—“A copy of any and all documents and ESI, including drafts, concerning clinical protocols, procedures, and/or guidelines in use by [the Defendants and their staff] between January 1, 2001 and the present.” C. Documents Relating to Referral Agreements Request No. 17—“Any and all documents and ESI and corresponding metadata, concerning any and all payments, of any amount and in any form, from or on behalf of FMC to any individual for referral of patient(s) to the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, and Dorchester clinics for medical, physical therapy and/or chiropractic treatment between January 1, 2001 and the present.” Request No. 22—“Any and all documents and ESI identifying any and all individuals, law firms, and/or other entities that received money from or on behalf of [the Defendants] for referring a patient to the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, and Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” Request No. 23—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning patient/client referral agreements and/or payments for patient/client referrals by and between [the Defendants], the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, and Dorchester clinics, and any legal representative.” D. Documents Relating to Real Property Request No. 30—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning any interest held by [the Defendants] in any real property between January 1, 2001 and the present, to include any and all documents and ESI identifying sales, transfers, and/or liens of any such real property.” Request No. 31 —“Any and all documents and ESI concerning any acquisition, disposition, transfer, and/or any sale of any real property involving FMC after April 16, 2007.” E. Documents Relating to Defendants' Business Practices and Relations Request No. 33—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning any contracts, correspondence, or business relations between [the Defendants] and Accelerated Receivables Management Solutions, LLC (“ARMS”) which affect bills relating to medical, physical therapy and/or chiropractic treatment rendered at the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, and Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” Request No. 36—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning marketing protocols, strategies, and efforts applicable to the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, and Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” Request No. 39—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning your document retention and destruction policies affecting records pertaining to the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, and Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” F. Documents Relating to Criminal Proceedings Request No. 40—“Any and all documents and ESI, including pleadings, criminal complaints, criminal applications, affidavits, docket sheets, grand jury indictments, arrest reports, and target letters, received or filed by you or your representatives, in connection with any criminal investigation or criminal action taken for or against you within the past five (5) years.” II. Areas of Contention as to Document Requests Propounded Upon Frederick Giampa, Joseph Giampa And Treating Chiropractors, Physical Therapists And Physical Therapist Assistants *5 Metropolitan also moves, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3), for an order requiring Defendants to produce for inspection and copying the following documents responsive to its request for production: A. Tax and Financial Account Information Request No. 1—“A complete copy of [the Defendant's] federal tax filings for the years 2001 through 2007, including but not limited to: tax returns, Schedule K–1s, W–2 Forms, Form 1099's, as well as any other documents required to be filed with the Internal Revenue Service for each year.” B. Documents Relating to Defendants' Internal Policies Request No. 12—“A copy of any and all documents and ESI, including drafts, concerning clinical protocols, procedures, and/or guidelines authored by you in whole or in part, and in use and/or implemented at the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, or Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” Request No. 13—“A copy of any and all documents and ESI, including drafts, concerning administrative protocols, procedures, and/or guidelines authored by you in whole or in part, and in use and/or implemented at the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, or Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” Request No. 14—“A copy of any and all documents and ESI, including drafts, concerning billing protocols, procedures, and/or guidelines authored by you in whole or in part, and in use and/or implemented at the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, or Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” C. Documents Relating to Referral Agreements Request No. 19—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning patient/client referral agreements and/or payments for patient/client referrals by and between FMC, First Spine, Admed, Excel PT, or AHCG and any legal representative.” Request No. 21—“Any and all documents and ESI identifying any and all individuals, legal representatives, or other entities that received money from or on behalf of FMC, First Spine, Admed, Excel PT, or AHCG for referring a patient to the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, or Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” D. Documents Relating to Real Property Request No. 26—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning any interest held by you in any real property between January 1, 2001 and the present, to include any and all documents and ESI identifying sales, transfers, and/or liens of any such real property.” E. Documents Relating to Defendants' Business Practices and Relations Request No. 30—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning marketing protocols, strategies, and efforts applicable to the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, or Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” Request No. 32—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning the development and/or implementation of fee tables or schedules for bills generated by the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, or Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” Request No. 33—“Any and all documents and ESI concerning your document retention and destruction policies affecting records pertaining to the Lowell, Worcester, Holyoke, Springfield, or Dorchester clinics between January 1, 2001 and the present.” F. Documents Relating to Criminal Proceedings *6 Request No. 34—“Any and all documents and ESI, including pleadings, criminal complaints, criminal applications, affidavits, docket sheets, grand jury indictments, arrest reports, and target letters, received or filed by you or your representatives, in connection with any criminal investigation or criminal action taken for or against you within the past five (5) years.” Analysis A. Tax and Financial Account Information Metropolitan requests this Court to compel disclosure of the corporate defendants' federal tax filings and financial account information. The Defendants' object to these requests as irrelevant, immaterial, privileged, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the Defendants contend that the requests for financial account information are overly broad and unduly burdensome because Metropolitan has not identified the documents, and/or tangible things sought with sufficient particularity. Metropolitan also requests a copy of the individual defendants' tax returns and financial account information. Defendants similarly object to this request as irrelevant, privileged, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The District of Massachusetts follows a two-pronged test regarding the discoverability of tax returns: (1) they must be relevant to the action and (2) the information contained therein must be otherwise unobtainable. The burden to show relevancy lies on the party seeking the returns; the party resisting disclosure bears the burden of establishing alternative sources of information. See Pedraza v. Holiday Housewares, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 40, 43 (D. Mass. 2001) (internal citation omitted). As the Defendants refuse to produce their own financial records, the information is unobtainable, and therefore, the second prong of this Court's test is satisfied with respect to the discoverability of the tax returns. The only reasonable alternative to the Defendants' own financial records are their tax returns and related documents. “The requirement of relevance, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is construed liberally.” Halperin v. Berlandi, 114 F.R.D. 8, 11 (D. Mass. 1986) (Alexander, M.J.). The tax and financial information are relevant under the broad interpretation of relevance suggested by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. Tax returns are subject to discovery as long as they are relevant to the subject matter of the action. See Heathman v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 503 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1974); Powell v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 80 F.R.D. 431, 433 (D.Ga. 1978); Weiner v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 76 F.R.D. 624, 627 (D. Fla. 1977). Particularly, the relevance of the Defendants' tax returns and financial account information is at least twofold. First, the documents are directly relevant to identifying the ultimate recipients of insurance proceeds paid by Metropolitan to the Defendants. Second, the Defendants' tax returns and financial records are directly relevant to Metropolitan's allegations that the Defendants maintained a system by which employees were paid bonuses to refer patients for treatment and / or to attorneys. See Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 142, ¶¶ 210–380. Based on the foregoing, the requested tax returns are clearly relevant to this case. Accordingly, this Court hereby ALLOWS Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production of Documents with respect to Requests Nos. 1 and 7 from the corporate defendants and Request No. 1 from the individual defendants. B. Documents Relating to Defendants' Internal Policies *7 Logically, a party cannot produce documentary evidence unless such evidence is in its “possession, custody, or control.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(ii); Fed R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (language defining the extent of document requests). Therefore, to the extent that Metropolitan requests information that the Defendants contend does not exist or is not in their possession or control, is a matter beyond the remedial reach of this Court. However, we remind all parties to consider the good faith requirement inherent in the discovery process and the duty of each party to supplement or correct its initial disclosures should any party learn that the information provided was incorrect or incomplete in some material respect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a),(e)(1)(A). While the Defendants are correct in stating that they cannot possibly produce documents pertaining to each employee's individual judgment and decision-making processes, the more precise question to be answered is whether or not copies of workplace procedures and guidelines exist. This Court does not believe that the Defendants are suggesting that the corporate defendants did not require each medical practitioner to read or sign some form of employee handbook as a condition of employment.[5] Therefore, this Court hereby ALLOWS Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production of Documents with respect to Requests Nos. 12, 13, and 14 from the individual defendants, to the extent that such documents exist. As to the corporate defendants' objections to Metropolitan's Request No. 12, any relevant information, which is otherwise discoverable, may be limited “geographically” or “temporally” to avoid overly broad and unduly burdensome requests. See Briddell v. St. Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 57, 60 (D. Mass. 2005); Glenn v. Williams, 209 F.R.D. 279 at 281–2 (D.D.C. 2002). Therefore, this Court rejects the corporate defendants' objections to Request No. 12 because we do not find the request overly broad or unduly burdensome. Metropolitan's request involves the retrieval of documents from a limited number of corporate defendants and is limited in scope to a period of eight years. Accordingly, this Court hereby ALLOWS Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production of Documents with respect to Request No. 12 from the corporate defendants. C. Documents Relating to Referral Agreements Metropolitan requests documents from the Defendants that identify the names of any persons who received money for patient referrals. Metropolitan contends that the bonus referral system created an incentive for employees to obtain patients for clinics, regardless of whether or not the patients objectively needed treatment. Although it is not Metropolitan's contention that the Defendants' bonus referral system, standing alone, supports a cause of action for common law fraud and deceit, Metropolitan does assert that such conduct is circumstantial evidence of the Defendants' plans to increase the profitability of their fraudulent scheme. *8 The Defendants counter that they do not see how alleged illegal kickbacks could be construed as a scheme to deceive Metropolitan, or anyone else, by means of false pretenses or deceptive conduct. The Defendants further assert that it is impossible to prove that by simply paying “bonuses” to employees, the Defendants caused damage to Metropolitan, a requisite condition to prove a claim for fraud or deceit. As stated above, a party cannot produce documentary evidence that it does not possess or control. Therefore, to the extent that Metropolitan requests information that the Defendants contend does not exist is beyond this Court. However, we once again remind all parties to consider the good faith requirement inherent in the discovery process and the duty of each party to supplement or correct its initial disclosures should any party learn that the information provided was incorrect or incomplete in some material respect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), (e)(1)(A). In the event that any documents should emerge, which address the existence of a bonus referral system or any other employee incentive program, this Court finds that such information would be directly relevant to the issue of the Defendants' alleged unlawful business practices. See generally Marshall v. Woolworth, Inc., 122 F.R.D. 117, 118 (D.P.R. 1988) (granting plaintiff's motion to compel a discovery request regarding plaintiff's bonuses and incentives awarded by defendant). Accordingly, this Court hereby ALLOWS Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production of Documents with respect to Request Nos. 17, 22, and 23 from the corporate defendants and Request Nos. 19 and 21 from the individual defendants. D. Documents Relating to Real Property Metropolitan requests documents from the Defendants relating to any property interest and conveyance or transfer since January 1, 2001. Metropolitan asserts that the purpose of the inquiry is not merely to discover the Defendants' assets, but more specifically, to demonstrate that their treatment of the assets reflects their motivation to protect the fruits of their fraudulent scheme and shield their assets from potential judgment creditors. Defendants object to these requests as irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, and not identified with sufficient enough particularity. Under the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, every conveyance made and obligation incurred with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors is deemed to be fraudulent as to both present and future creditors. Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 109A, § 7; In re Prichard, 361 B.R. 11, 16 (Bkrtcy. D. Mass. 2007). Creditors whose claims arise after the conveyance are not barred from seeking the avoidance of the transfer. In re Lowenstein, 312 B.R. 6, 12 (Bkrtcy. D. Mass. 2004). Thus far, the nature of Metropolitan's claims relate solely to the Defendants' alleged common scheme to defraud and its unlawful billing practices. There is no right to the discovery of assets until after a judgment is levied and this Court finds that the commencement of an “assert search” at this juncture is not proper. See Sanderson v. Winner, 507 F. 2d. 477, 480 (10th Cir. 1974) (stating that there is no right to the discovery of assets until judgment is obtained). Since Metropolitan's case is still in pretrial, and in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 69, this Court finds that Metropolitan will have an ample opportunity to discover the existence or location of any assets should the Court render judgment in its favor. Accordingly, this Court hereby DENIES Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production of Documents with respect to Request Nos. 30 and 31 from the corporate defendants and Request No. 26 from the individual defendants. E. Documents Relating to Defendants' Business Practices and Relations *9 Metropolitan requests information regarding the Defendants' clinical protocols and document retention policies. Metropolitan asserts that the Defendants participated in an unlawful scheme to defraud and that the Defendants, either individually or collectively, conspired to generate unlawful protocols to implement such fraud. Metropolitan further asserts that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts imposes a document retention requirement upon all state licensed chiropractic facilities and that any refusal to produce these documents is tantamount to an admission of failing to comply with the applicable chiropractic regulations. See 233 CMR 5.02(7). Defendants Future Management and Admed state that they do not have “clinical protocols” because they did not treat patients. The remaining Defendants contend that there were no set clinical protocols and that the practitioner who treated a given patient determined what protocol to use. The Defendants again assert that they cannot possibly produce documents pertaining to each employee's individual judgment and decision-making processes. However, the more precise issue is whether or not hard copies of the Defendants' clinical protocols and document retention policies exist as required by 233 CMR 5.02(7). In light of the applicability of 233 CMR 5.02(7), this Court hereby ALLOWS Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production of Documents with respect to Request Nos. 36 and 39 from the corporate defendants and Request Nos. 30, 32, and 33 from the individual defendants. As to Request No. 33 against the corporate defendants, this Court hereby DENIES Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. In Request No. 33, Metropolitan requests all documents “concerning any contracts, correspondence, or business relationship with Accelerated Receivables Management Solutions, LLC (“ARMS”). However, because there is no evidence to indicate that ARMS participated in, prepared, or was involved with any of the billing for the patients whose accounts are involved in this case, this Court hereby finds that ARMS has no relevancy to any of the facts or issues presented in this instant action. F. Documents Relating to Criminal Proceedings Metropolitan requests that the Defendants produce information from any criminal proceedings involving the Defendants within the last five years. Metropolitan asserts that this information is directly relevant to Metropolitan's allegations of insurance fraud insofar as such criminal activity may relate to acts of deceit, untruthfulness, conspiracy, or other insurance fraud. The Defendants have openly represented they are currently the subject(s) of an ongoing criminal investigation, and moreover, filed a Motion to Stay based upon the alleged investigation. SeeDefs.' Mot. to Stay Proceedings, Doc. No. 171. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, a plaintiff may obtain discovery relating to any non-privileged matter that is relevant to the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 also states, in relevant part, that “it is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See Walsh v. Pullman Co. et al., 9 F.R.D. 107, (D. Mass. 1949). As previously stated, “[r]elevance is to be broadly construed at the discovery stage of the litigation and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action.” Gagne v. Reddy, 104 F.R.D. 454, 456 (D. Mass. 1984) (quoting Miller v. Doctor's Gen. Hosp., 76 F.R.D. 136, 138 (W.D. Okla. 1977) (emphasis added)). That said, this Court is aware that a district court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowable if it concludes that the discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, can be obtained in another less burdensome manner, the expense outweighs its likely benefit, or if the party seeking discovery had ample opportunity to obtain the information sometime before discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). *10 Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that evidence of a witness's prior criminal convictions speaks directly to a witness's general reputation for truth and veracity. See Commonwealth v. Despres, 875 N.E.2d 864, 870 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). This Court also finds that Metropolitan's request is not barred by any of the limiting factors set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). In accessing information regarding the Defendants' involvement in any criminal proceedings within the last five years, counsel must certify that it will not reveal the Defendants' record to third parties uninvolved with this instant action. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, §§ 172(c), 178. Accordingly, this Court hereby ALLOWS Metropolitan's Motion to Compel Production of Documents with respect to Request No. 40 from the corporate defendants and Request No. 34 from the individual defendants. III. Labeling And/Or Bates Stamping Of Produced Documents In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E), unless otherwise ordered or stipulated by the court, a party must produce documents as they are kept in the ordinary 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) (emphasis added). Pursuant to Rule 34, this Court hereby ORDERS the Defendants, collectively and individually, to produce such documents available for discovery and to organize and label them corresponding to Metropolitan's ALLOWED requests. SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Future Management Corp., Advanced Spine Centers, Inc., Excel Physical Therapy, Inc., Associated Health Care Group, Inc., Admed Healthcare Corp. [2] Grace Cater, Mark E. Czerniak, Brian J Culliney, Lawrence L. Gray, John F. Klug, Jennifer L. McConnell, Sheila Ocasio, Kathleen O'Malley, John D. Reilly, Jr., Brian Sickorez, Ian K. Simpson, Frederick T. Giampa, Joseph Giampa, Sabir H. Moghul, Reginald Osuji, James Galeas and Michael Langlitz, Brian Awbrey, David Hurtado and Douglas J. Gendron. [3] Jurisdiction in this matter is based upon diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.00, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as all but one of the Defendants reside in this judicial district, and the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred here. [4] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3) reads, in pertinent part: “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” [5] Employee handbooks, also often referred to as Policy and Procedure Manuals, are undoubtedly one of the most important communication tools between an employer and employee. As a matter of common practice, employee handbooks outline the acceptable policies, procedures or protocols of a business and address not only how to conduct a business, but how employees should conduct themselves as well. This Court does not believe that the Defendants are suggesting that the corporate defendants did not provide its medical practitioners with any semblance of an employee handbook upon employment.