BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., and HEALTH OPTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. DAVITA, INC., f/k/a DAVITA HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, INC., Defendant Case No. 3:19-cv-574-J-39MCR United States District Court, M.D. Florida Filed February 09, 2022 Counsel Amira A. ElShareif, Pro Hac Vice, Anne M. Lockner, Pro Hac Vice, Stephanie Alicia Chen, Pro Hac Vice, Jamie R. Kurtz, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey S. Gleason, Pro Hac Vice, John K. Harting, Pro Hac Vice, Munir R. Meghjee, Pro Hac Vice, Charles C. Gokey, Pro Hac Vice, Esther Soria Mignanelli, Pro Hac Vice, Ena Kovacevic, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Ceci Culpepper Berman, Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Steven L. Brannock, Brannock Humphries & Berman, Tampa, FL, Jacqueline Alyse Van Laningham, Michael A. Abel, Jared Joseph Burns, Abel Bean Law, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, Ronald J Schutz, Pro Hac Vice, Robins Kaplan, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. David Weese Marston, Jr., Valerie M. Toth, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Miami, FL, John C. Dodds, Pro Hac Vice, Su Jin Kim, Pro Hac Vice, Adina D. Bingham, Pro Hac Vice, Brian M Jazaeri, Pro Hac Vice, David L. Schrader, Pro Hac Vice, Jordan McCrary, Pro Hac Vice, Brian W. Shaffer, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Elise Attridge, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, Thomas Edward Bishop, Bishop & Mills, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant. Richardson, Monte C., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Compliance with March 9, 2021 Order (“Motion”) (Doc. 97), Plaintiffs’ Response in opposition thereto (Doc. 105), Defendant's Reply (Doc. S-195), and Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply (Doc. S-230). Upon consideration, the Motion to Compel is due to be DENIED to the extent discussed herein. I. Background Defendant, DaVita, Inc., brings its Motion pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3)(B) and Local Rule 3.04(a)[1] to compel Plaintiffs, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. and Health Options, Inc. (collectively “Florida Blue”), to comply with the Court's March 9, 2021 Order, directing Plaintiffs to comply with certain discovery requests. (Doc. 97 at 1.) Defendant contends that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court's Order and seek an order from the Court compelling Plaintiffs to produce the following: (1) [ ] communications between Florida Blue and the AKF regarding third-party premium payments, which Florida Blue agreed to produce as early as February 2020 and which the Court has directed Florida Blue to produce; (2) [ ] a response to certain Requests for Admission (“RFAs”)[2] ...; and (3) [ ] documents concerning considerations behind Florida Blue's increases in insurance premiums during the relevant period. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs respond that Defendant's Motion should be denied because Defendant seeks documents that are not in Plaintiffs’ possession, Plaintiffs already responded to the Requests for Admission, and the Motion seeks “voluminous evidence of DaVita-specific premium adjustments that never occurred.” (Doc. 105 at 1.) II. Standard Motions to compel discovery under Rule 37(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Com. Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). The trial court's exercise of discretion regarding discovery orders will be sustained absent a finding of abuse of that discretion to the prejudice of a party. See Westrope, 730 F.2d at 731. The party bringing a motion to compel discovery “bears the burden of demonstrating that the information it seeks is relevant.” Costa v. Metro. Life. Ins. Co., No. 6:17-CV-714-ORL-40TBS, 2018 WL 1635642, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2018). For the Court to be able to rule on a motion to compel, it must “be specifically targeted to specific requests and must have reasons why the motion should be granted.” Newman v. Sun Cap., Inc., No. 2:09-cv-445-FtM-29SPC, 2010 WL 11470980, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2010). III. Discussion A. Request No. 10 First, the undersigned finds the Motion is due to be denied to the extent Plaintiffs aver that they have submitted all responsive documents in their possession regarding Request No. 10. See Cabrera v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., No. 12-61390-CIV, 2014 WL 2999206, at *12 (S.D. Fla. July 3, 2014) (quoting Bank of New York v. Meridien BIAO Bank Tanzania Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 135, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)) (“ ‘Under ordinary circumstances, a party's good faith averment that the items sought simply do not exist, or are not in his possession, custody or control, should resolve the issue of failure of production ....’ ”). Of note, while Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ response to RFP No. 10, consisting of only six documents is incomplete, Plaintiffs describe their diligent efforts to produce responsive documents to this request and assert they have produced all responsive documents in their possession. (Doc. 105 at 4-7; Doc. S-230 at 2-3.) Plaintiffs also responded that they were pursuing parallel discovery from AKF through a third-party subpoena and would “promptly share AKF's document production with DaVita, including any that are responsive to DaVita's Request No. 10.” (Doc. 105 at 8.) In their Sur-Reply, Plaintiffs maintain that AKF's subsequent document production revealed no other communications between Plaintiffs and AKF. (Doc. S-230 at 3.) Nevertheless, within ten days of this Order, Plaintiffs must supplement their responses, if necessary, or provide Defendant with certification that their discovery responses are complete and that Plaintiffs understand that if they improperly withhold documents, they could be subject to sanctions. B. Request Nos. 77 and 80 (Documents Related to Plaintiffs’ Premium Increases) *2 Next, the undersigned finds the Motion is due to be denied as to Defendant's request to compel Plaintiffs to produce responsive documents to Request No. 77, which seeks “documents sufficient to explain the basis for any annual increases in Plaintiff's [sic] premiums for QHP plans for each year from 2014 to the present,” and Request No. 80, which seeks “copies of all actuarial cost models and analyses used to assist Plaintiff with financial forecasting and with pricing benefit coverage for QHP plans for each year from 2014 to present and all communications concerning such models and analyses.” (Doc. 97 at 12.) Plaintiffs respond, in part, as follows: Florida Blue employs eight actuaries specifically dedicated to its QHPs, who are supported by 30-40 other individuals throughout Florida Blue, and who work year-round to perform the complex analyses necessary to set premiums for Florida Blue's QHPs. Ramsey Decl. ¶ 2. Virtually any document generated by these individuals related to QHPs over the last seven years is likely to be responsive to DaVita's document request. The burden of reviewing and producing this extremely high volume of documents far outweighs any marginal benefit to these proceedings—particularly as it would be exceptionally difficult for any third party to use this large volume of documents to accurately reconstruct the basis for Florida Blue's premium adjustments. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. (Doc. 105 at 18-19.) The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that these Requests are overbroad and burdensome and their relevancy not readily apparent. Because Defendants failed to provide sufficient justification for these Requests, the Motion is due to be denied as to Request Nos. 7 and 80. Although Defendant appeared to narrow the scope of its Requests in its Reply, as Plaintiffs observe, its attempt to rewrite its Motion and its document requests is unavailing. (See Doc. S-230 at 4.) Additionally, as Plaintiffs point out, most of the documents Defendants now seek which are characterized “as Florida Blue's rate filing documents” are publicly available. (See id. at 4-5.) As such, the Motion is due to be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: The Motion (Doc. 97) is DENIED to the extent discussed herein. Within ten (10) days of this Order, Plaintiffs must, if necessary, supplement their response to Request No. 10 or provide Defendant with certification that their discovery responses are complete as directed in the body of this Order. DONE and ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on February 9, 2022. Footnotes [1] Defendant appears to cite to the former Local Rule 3.04(a), which is no longer in effect. [2] In its Reply, Defendant states that after it filed its Motion, AKF produced discovery materials which rendered its Motion as to RFA Nos. 102 and 109 moot. (Doc. S-195 at 1 n.1.) As such, the Motion is denied as moot as to this issue.