MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC and MSPA Claims 1, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc., Farmers New Century Insurance Company, 21st Century Insurance Company, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company, Mid-century Insurance Company, 21st Century North America Insurance Company, Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 21st Century Indemnity Insurance Company, 21st Century Preferred Insurance Company, Coast National Insurance Company, Foremost Signature Insurance Company and Verimed Ipa, LLC, Defendants Case No: 8:19-mc-61-T-02JSS United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division Signed September 12, 2019 Counsel Adam Michael Foster, Michael Lin Baum, Pedram Esfandiary, Robert Brent Wisner, Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC, Los Angeles, CA, Charles E. Whorton, Rivero Mestre LLP, Coral Gables, FL, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs. Ari Gerstin, Valerie B. Greenberg, Akerman LLP, Miami, FL, Jason L. Margolin, Akerman LLP, Tampa, FL, Jonathan Lamet, Saxena White P.A., Boca Raton, FL, for Defendants. Sneed, Julie S., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Verimed IPA, LLC to Comply with Subpoena for Documents (“Motion”). (Dkt. 1.) Respondent, Verimed, IPA, LLC (“Verimed”) opposes the Motion. (Dkt. 5.) For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND This matter arises out of a putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., Case No. 17-cv-02259-CAS-PLA (the “California Action”). (Dkt. 1 at 2; Dkt. 5 at 1.) The plaintiffs in the California Action seek to recover, as assignees of various Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”) and affiliated entities, payments those organizations made that allegedly should have been made, or reimbursed, by the defendants as “primary payers” under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (the “MSPA”). (Dkt. 1 at 3-4.) According to Defendants, Verimed is one of the entities that assigned its rights to the plaintiffs in the California Action. (Dkt. 1 at 3.) In December 2018, Defendants served a subpoena to produce documents (“Subpoena”) on Verimed in Tampa, Florida. (Dkt. 1-1 at 20.) The Subpoena seeks documents regarding Verimed's right to reimbursement under the MSPA and its relationship with the named plaintiffs in the California Action. (Dkt. 1 at 4.) APPLICABLE STANDARDS A party is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Proportionality requires counsel and the court to consider whether relevant information is discoverable in view of the needs of the case.” Tiger v. Dynamic Sports Nutrition, LLC, 2016 WL 1408098, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2016). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(i), “[a]t any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.” ANALYSIS In their Motion, Defendants seek an order compelling Verimed to furnish a written response to the Subpoena and produce all responsive documents. (Dkt. 1 at 15.) According to Defendants, Verimed is one of the entities that assigned its rights to the plaintiffs in the California Action. (Dkt. 1 at 3.) The Subpoena seeks documents regarding Verimed's right to reimbursement under the MSPA and its relationship with the named plaintiffs in the California Action. (Dkt. 1 at 4.) In response, Verimed states that it has produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control. (Dkt. 5 at 3.) Specifically, Verimed maintains that it responded to the Subpoena in February 2019 by furnishing to Defendants the few responsive documents in Verimed's possession. (Dkt. 5 at 1-2.) Further, in March 2019, Verimed furnished written responses and objections to Defendants’ Subpoena. (Dkt. 5 at 2.) Defendants, however, did not receive or were unaware of Verimed's responsive production until June 13, 2019, after Defendants filed the Motion. (Dkt. 8 at 2.) *2 In their reply, Defendants acknowledge Verimed's responsive production but argue that Verimed has yet to produce certain additional responsive documents and an amended subpoena response, as the parties agreed on June 13, 2019. (Dkt. 8 at 3.) The supplemental discovery pertains to Requests Nos. 2, 12, 13, 14, 24, and 28. (Dkt. 8-1.) These requests are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case because Plaintiffs in the California Action are proceeding as assignees of Verimed. (Dkt. 1 at 3-5.) Thus, Requests Nos. 2, 12, 13, 14, 24, and 28 properly seek information regarding Verimed's relationship with Plaintiffs and Verimed's right to seek reimbursement under the MSPA. (Dkt. 8-1 at 1-6.) Further, by agreeing to respond to each of these requests, Verimed waived its discovery objections. See, e.g., Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, LLC v. Leisure Getaways, Inc., No. 617CV501ORL31GJK, 2018 WL 3827652, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2018) (“It is well-established that if a producing party objects to a discovery request, but then produces documents ‘subject to’ or ‘without waiving’ the objection, the Court will generally find that such objection is waived.”). Thus, to the extent Verimed has not yet furnished responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control as to Requests Nos. 2, 12, 13, 14, 24, and 28 (Dkt. 8-1), Defendants’ Motion to Comply is granted. Defendants’ Motion to Comply is otherwise denied without prejudice at this time. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Comply (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED in part to the extent stated herein and is otherwise DENIED without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 12, 2019.