UnitedHealthcare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Renal Assocs. LLC » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

UnitedHealthcare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Renal Assocs. LLC

UnitedHealthcare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Renal Assocs. LLC

Case Date: 10/20/2017
Citation: 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174454
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Southern District of Florida (S.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: William Matthewman
Rule(s): Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 and 26

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court granting Defendant’s Omnibus Motion to Compel. The Court had permitted the Defendants to select an additional 16 custodians and 12 additional search terms and to request more if Defendants have a good-faith basis to do. The first issue was whether permitting additional custodians and search terms was unfair and overbroad. The plaintiff asserted that the evidence did not suggest that the Plaintiff’s production was inadequate and that permitting the additional custodians and search terms was not proportional. The second involved a responsive, non-privileged document that Defendant did not produce. The plaintiff asserted the Defendant made a misrepresentation to the court and requested that the Court order the Defendant to produce a privilege log to minimize the Defendant’s ability to withhold responsive documents.


The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

For the first issue, the court held that additional custodians and search terms were not unfair and overbroad. The Defendant was still confined to abide by the court’s prior discovery order to not use terms and custodians to circumvent the limits and parameters of the orders. The court however admonished the parties to cease the discovery “slugfest” involving over 50 discovery motions, responses, replies, notices, and declarations and to engage in a cooperative attempt to identify appropriate search terms. Citing John Rosenthal and Moze Cowper, A Practitioner’s Guide to Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer: A Year Aher the Amendments, The Sedona Conference Institute, 2008, at 1 1 and The Federal Judges Guide to Discovery, Edition 3. 0, The Electronic Discovery Institute (2017), at 50, the court urged the parties to engage in a process of thoughtfully designing search terms and then testing the search terms results through sampling.

For the second issue, the court found no basis in the Plaintiff’s assertion. The Plaintiffs provided no evidence that the Defendant had concealed responsive, non-privileged documents, and the Plaintiffs provided no case law as to why the court should order a privilege log simply because one party alleges concealment of documents.

Relevant Documents:

Omnibus Discovery Order (Doc. 290)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of Omnibus Discovery Order (Doc. 291)

Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 297)

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 304)

Defendant’s Sur-Reply to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 315)

Order (Doc. 329)

E-Discovery Issues: Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Compel
E-discovery Tags: Keyword Search, Privilege
E-discovery subjects: Electronically stored information

Published: July 8th, 2020

Category: Uncategorized

Comments are closed.