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

Plaintiff argued for the reconsideration of the Court’s prior discovery order, alleging that the discovery order was unfair and did not properly narrow the additional custodian and key word search discovery.

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration in part and denied it in part. With respect to the additional custodians and search terms, the Court clarified that the addition of custodians and search terms did not alter the original obligations of the discovery order, and noted that such discovery still had to be relevant and proportional. Further, because of the litigiousness of the past discovery orders, the Court ordered Plaintiffs and Defendants to cooperate in discovery and noted it would be considering cost shifting and sanctions in the future. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants should have been required to produce a privilege log because of the omission of one non-privileged document.

Motion for Modification of Omnibus Discovery Order (Doc. 291) 

Response in Opposition to Motion for Modification (Doc. 297) 

Reply in Support of Motion for Modification (Doc. 304)

Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 315) 

Order on Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 329)