Preview
Filing # 102310798 E-Filed 01/28/2020 08:18:04 AM
IN THE COUNTY COURT, IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MULTIMED CARE INC A/A/O ARACELYS GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
LEYVA CASE NO. 19-629-CC-26
FLORIDA BAR NO.
Plaintiff,
vs.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
COMES NOW THE Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company, by and through the
undersigned attorney and responds to Plaintiff's Request for Production as follows:
1. A copy of all insurance policies that would inure to the benefit of Leyva Aracelys
and/or Plaintiff, as assignee of Leyva Aracelys, together with any declaration of coverage page
and sworn statement of a corporate officer of Defendant attesting to the coverage and authenticity
of the policy as required by Florida Statutes.
RESPONSE: Attached.
2. A. copy of the entire PIP file maintained by you or anyone on your behalf with
regard to the Plaintiff, insured, Leyva Aracelys, or beneficiary of the policy referred to above,
cover to cover, including original jackets and everything contained within the file including
without limitation:
a. acopy ofall notations and documents regarding notice of the accident;
b. a copy of all telephone messages, logs or notations evidencing all telephone
calls made and received by you, or any of your agents on your behalf: regarding this
claim;
c. a copy of all accident reports prepared by you, and received by law
enforcement agencies regarding the accident referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint;
d. acopy of all interoffice memoranda;
e. a copy of all correspondence received by you or sent by you or any of your
agents and employees, Including any insurance agencies, doctors' offices, any
employers, agencies hired to select doctors and/or schedule “independent medical
examinations” and/or “examinations under oath,” law enforcement agencies,
investigative agencies, attorneys, insureds and/or their relatives;
Sensitivity: Confidentialmat
a copy of any and all PIP forms, including PIP applications, attending
physician and/or medical report forms, employer verification/lost wage forms, medical
authorization forms, insurance disclosure, policy defense statement and other requests
for information sent and/or received by you, your agents and employees to anyone
associated with a claim for no-fault insurance benefits under the policy;
a copy of the entire underwriting file including the application for insurance
and all renewals, endorsements, and any correspondence regarding cancellation of the
policy and all checks (front and back) pertaining to any premium refunds;
a copy of all notice letters, including fax confirmations or green card receipts,
proof of mailing or other evidence confirming delivery pertaining to any requests for
attendance at examinations under oath;
a copy of all notice letters, fax receipts, certified mail receipts, proof of mailing or other
evidence confirming delivery of notices mailed or faxed regarding a request to
attend an I.M.E. examination(s);
a copy of any and all I.M.E. reports;
a copy of any and all Peer Review reports;
a copy of any and all examinations under oath or recorded statement (tapes
and/or transcripts);
. a copy of all checks issued for payment of any no-fault benefits to any
insured, medical provider or other beneficiary under this claim;
a copy of all letters, explanation of benefits and/or other correspondence sent
explaining decisions to pay, reduce, deny, suspend, terminate or cancel payment of
benefits;
a copy of all medical records, bills, notices of intent to initiate treatment and
any other correspondence received by Defendant from any medical provider in
connection with services rendered to Leyva Aracelys or applicable insured or policy
beneficiary in connection with this claim;
a copy of all photographs, videotapes, writings, drawings, maps, vehicle
tepair estimates and or other notes that Defendant has in their possession regarding
property damage to any of the automobiles in the subject accident, the accident scene,
or the injuries sustained by Leyva Aracelys in this lawsuit;
a copy of all statements and/or examinations under oath of any witnesses or persons
taken by Defendant and/or their agents or persons hired by Defendant in connection
with this case;
a copy of all security logs and/or sign in sheets for the dates of any Examinations under
Oath and/or Independent Medical Examinations.
RESPONSE: (a-r) Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic
mail contemporaneously with this filing.
3.
A copy of all correspondence, forms, notations, memoranda assignments of
benefits, directions to pay, or any other information received by you in any form whatsoever from
any physician’s or healthcare provider's office concerning Leyva Aracelys’s physical and/or
mental condition.
Sensitivity: Confidential
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mailcontemporaneously with this filing.
4. A copy of all correspondence, forms, notations, memoranda, records, documents
and all other documents in your file which were transmitted or furnished to anyone concerning this
case.
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
5. A copy of all computer diary notes and/or computer log notes in the possession of
Defendant concerning this case.
RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, harassing, vague and
ambiguous. Further, due to its overly broad and ambiguous nature, this request may seek
production of documents protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege.
Florida Courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim files are not discoverable in a
breach of contract case such as this and before the plaintiff either brings a bad faith claim
or prior to the bad faith claim becoming ripe. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier
Diag. Ctrs., LLC, 185 So. 3d 575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Notwithstanding said objection,
refer to non-privileged documents in claims file attached in response to request for
production.
6. A copy ofall letters, applications, documents and any other document regardless of
how nominated, received from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's attorney, Leyva Aracelys or Leyva
Aracelys’s attorney concerning this case.
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
7. A copy of all surveillance reports claims history reports or other investigative
reports prepared by you or on your behalf with regard to the Plaintiff or Leyva Aracelys.
RESPONSE: Objection, work product.
8. A copy of any and all surveillance films or photographs taken by you or anyone on
your behalf of the Plaintiff or Leyva Aracelys.
RESPONSE: Objection, work product.
9. A copy of an Up-to-date PIP payout sheet on Leyva Aracelys.
RESPONSE: Attached.
10. A copy of all any and all statements taken by the Defendant of any witnesses with
regard to any fact relevant to any fact in this case, prior to the filing of suit in this matter.
Sensitivity: ConfidentialRESPONSE: Statements are available for inspection at the office of GEICO Staff
Counsel, located at 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 700 Coral Gables, FL 33134
11. A copy of any and all photographs taken by the Defendant showing the extent of
damage to any of the vehicles involved in the accident as were taken prior to the filing of suit.
RESPONSE: Objection, work product.
12. A copy of any and all photographs taken by the Defendant of the scene of the
accident at any time prior to the filing of suit.
RESPONSE: Objection, work product.
13. A copy of any and all estimates of repair or statements concerning the nature and
extent of damage to any of the vehicles involved in the accident.
RESPONSE: Objection, work product.
14. A copy of all any and all writings, memorandums, notes or other materials
reflecting examination by the Defendant of any of the vehicles involved in the accident.
RESPONSE: Objection; work-product privileged, attorney-client privileged, vague,
overbroad, not germane to the issues in the instant case, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding objections, refer to the relevant,
non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing.
15. Acopy ofall records reflecting the towing of any vehicles involved in the accident
from the scene of the accident.
RESPONSE: Objection; irrelevant, immaterial, vague, overbroad, not germane to the
issues in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
16. A copy of any and all records reflecting payment to the medical providers who
conducted the independent medical examinations or peer reviews in this case.
RESPONSE: Objection, work product as Defendant has not yet determined if it will
rely on any expert in trial. The Defendant will disclose any experts it intends to rely on at trial
in accordance with any trial order of the court. Otherwise, without waiving said objection,
please see the peer review report attached.
17. Ifa vendor was used to retain the services of a medical provider that conducted an
independent medical examination or peer review, then please produce a copy of all payments made
to said vendor for the last three (3) years.
RESPONSE: Objection, this request seeks to exploit and exceed the “financial bias”
limitations of Allstate_v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1999), such that it violates
Sensitivity: Confidentialconfidentiality laws, begs creation of documents neither kept nor ever in existence, and
endeavors production of irrelevant, immaterial, burdensome, and harassing discovery.
Coppersmith vy. Perrine, 91 So.3d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Defendant further objects to this
request as it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
18. A copy of any and all pamphlets provided to Leyva Aracelys.
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
19. A copy of any and all letters reflecting Leyva Aracelys’s rights and benefits under
the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
20. A copy of any and all documents, including but not limited to, all applications for
insurance signed by Leyva Aracelys.
RESPONSE: GEICO objects to producing such application on the grounds that it is
not relevant to any issue in the underlying claim, nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to this claim.
21. A copy of any and all documents sent to or furnished to the Plaintiff or Leyva
Aracelys after the automobile accident in question.
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
22. If this case involves reductions in medical expenses made by the Defendant, please
provide copies of ANY AND ALL documents, regardless of how nominated; including but not
limited to: writings, letters, publications, guidelines, treatises, periodicals, books, magazines,
compilations, formulas, references, sources, writings, schedules, analysis, software programs,
studies, surveys, statistics, geographic analysis, print outs, and/or memorandums which were used
to form the basis for the reductions made by the Defendant for each and every service which was
reduced by the Defendant.
RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, harassing, vague and
ambiguous. Further, due to its overly broad and ambiguous nature, this request may seek
production of documents protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege. Florida
Courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim files are not discoverable in a breach of
contract case such as this and before the plaintiff either brings a bad faith claim or prior to the
bad faith claim becoming ripe. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diag. Ctrs., LLC,
185 So. 3d 575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
Sensitivity: Confidential23. If the Defendant utilized the services of an outside company to assist the Defendant
in adjusting or adjudicating medical bills in this case then please provide copies of any and all
agreements or contracts entered into by and between the Defendant and the outside company;
documents which reflect how the outside company is compensated; any sales, marketing or sates
material generated by the outside company and provided to the Defendant.
RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, harassing, vague and
ambiguous. Further, due to its overly broad and ambiguous nature, this request may seek
production of documents protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege. Florida
Courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim files are not discoverable in a breach of
contract case such as this and before the plaintiff either brings a bad faith claim or prior to the
bad faith claim becoming ripe. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diag. Ctrs., LLC,
185 So. 3d 575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
24. A copy of any and all Explanations of Benefits Forms generated by the Defendant
which reflect that Defendant allowed the amounts charged for the CPT codes which are the subject
of the instant litigation.
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
25. A copy of any and all PIP claims manuals in the possession of the Defendant.
RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, harassing, vague and
ambiguous. Further, due to its overly broad and ambiguous nature, this request may seek
production of documents protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege. Florida
Courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim files are not discoverable in a breach of
contract case such as this and before the plaintiff either brings a bad faith claim or prior to the
bad faith claim becoming ripe. See State Farm Mut, Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diag. Ctrs., LLC,
185 So. 3d 575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
26. If this case involves reductions or an allegation the Plaintiff charged an
unreasonable amount for the medical expenses at Issue, please provide copies of ANY AND ALL
documents, regardless of how nominated; including but not limited to: writings, letters,
publications, guidelines, treatises, periodicals, books, magazines, compilations, formulas,
references, sources, writings, schedules, analysis, software programs, studies, surveys, statistics,
geographic analysis, print outs, and/or memorandums which could be used to establish usual and
customary prices for CPT codes that are the subject of this litigation.
RESPONSE: Objection; improper burden shifting. Pursuant to Derius v. Allstate
Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff's burden to prove treatment
and bills for treatment are reasonable, related and necessary.
27. If this case involves reductions in medical expenses made by the Defendant or if
the Defendant is alleging that any of the amounts charged by the provider was unreasonable as to
the amount, please provide copies of ANY AND ALL "Provider Profiles Sort by Maximum
Sensitivity: ConfidentialCharge" for the zip code(s), also known as a Procedure Report, of the medical providers for the
CPT codes at Issue.
RESPONSE: Objection; improper burden shifting. Pursuant to Derius y. Allstate
Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff's burden to prove treatment
and bills for treatment are reasonable, related and necessary.
28. If this case involves reductions or an allegation the Plaintiff charged an
unreasonable amount for the services at issue, please provide a report that lists what other medical
providers in the same geographic area as the Plaintiff charged for the CPT codes which were
reduced by the Defendant in this case.
RESPONSE: Objection; improper burden shifting. Pursuant to Derius y. Allstate
Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff's burden to prove treatment
and bills for treatment are reasonable, related and necessary.
29. A copy of any and all agreements the Defendant has entered into, with medical
providers in the same geographic region as the Plaintiff, within the past three years for payment of
medical bills.
RESPONSE: GEICO does not maintain Geo-Zip reports. Further, the request seeks
irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and
has no nexus to the claims or events at issue in this litigation. Each claim is handled on its
own individual merits. As GEICO can understand this request, it appears to be seeking
confidential, proprietary business information and trade secrets. GEICO does not have an
existing report or document with this information as requested and a party cannot be
compelled to produce documents that do not exist. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pinder, 746 So. 2d 1255
(Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
30. A copy of any and all other document in the possession of the Defendant which
addresses what is a reasonable charge for the CPT codes at issue for the time period in question.
RESPONSE: Objection; improper burden shifting. Pursuant to Derius v. Allstate
Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff's burden to prove treatment
and bills for treatment are reasonable, related and necessary.
31. Ifthe Defendant used an outside vendor to retain the doctor that performed an IME,
peer review, or to provide expert testimony in this case please provide documentation which would
reflect the amount of money the Defendant, the Defendant's parent company, or any of the
Defendant’s subsidiaries paid said vendor or vendors forth the last 3 years.
RESPONSE: Objection, work product as Defendant has not yet determined if it will
rely on any expert in trial. The Defendant will disclose any experts it intends to rely on at trial
in accordance with any trial order of the court. Otherwise, without waiving said objection,
please see the peer review report attached.
Sensitivity: Confidential32. If you have denied payment on the basis of a material misrepresentation, please
produce a copy of any and all underwriting guidelines and manuals that Indicate what your
companies’ policies are with respect to acceptance of risk and calculation of rate premiums.
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
33. A copy of any and all pre-suit demand letter(s) received by the Defendant with
regard to the instant claim.
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
34. A copy of any and all documents sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in response
to Plaintiff's pre-suit demand letters).
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
35. Acopy of any all HCFA forms and/or CMS 1500 forms submitted to the Defendant
with regard to the instant claim.
RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail
contemporaneously with this filing.
36. A copy of all insurance licenses for all adjusters that worked on this file that were
in effect at the time the adjuster worked on this file.
RESPONSE: Objection; irrelevant, immaterial, vague, harassing, overbroad, not
germane to the issues in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence.
37. A copy of any and all other documents in your claim file not protected by the
attorney-client communication privilege.
RESPONSE: See privilege log.
38. A privilege log listing all documents for which you claim privilege, are not being
produced, and/or objected to within this Request for Production.
RESPONSE: See privilege log.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Sensitivity: ConfidentialI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
Electronic Mail on this the 28th day of January, 2020 to the following designated service email
address(es): Majid Vossoughi, Esq., Majid Vossoughi, P.A., mail@piplawsuit.com,
majid@piplawsuit.com.
Sensitivity: Confidential
LAW OFFICE OF HAYDEE DE LA ROSA-
TOLGYESI
/s/_ Daniel Faltas
Daniel Faltas
(Employees of GEICO General Insurance Company)
Florida Bar No.:
2600 Douglas Road, Suite 700
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone:
Facsimile:
Attorney for Defendant(s): GEICO General Insurance
Company,
Service Email: Miamipipgeico@geico.com
Preview
Filing # 102310798 E-Filed 01/28/2020 08:18:04 AM IN THE COUNTY COURT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA MULTIMED CARE INC A/A/O ARACELYS GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION LEYVA CASE NO. 19-629-CC-26 FLORIDA BAR NO. Plaintiff, vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW THE Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company, by and through the undersigned attorney and responds to Plaintiff's Request for Production as follows: 1. A copy of all insurance policies that would inure to the benefit of Leyva Aracelys and/or Plaintiff, as assignee of Leyva Aracelys, together with any declaration of coverage page and sworn statement of a corporate officer of Defendant attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policy as required by Florida Statutes. RESPONSE: Attached. 2. A. copy of the entire PIP file maintained by you or anyone on your behalf with regard to the Plaintiff, insured, Leyva Aracelys, or beneficiary of the policy referred to above, cover to cover, including original jackets and everything contained within the file including without limitation: a. acopy ofall notations and documents regarding notice of the accident; b. a copy of all telephone messages, logs or notations evidencing all telephone calls made and received by you, or any of your agents on your behalf: regarding this claim; c. a copy of all accident reports prepared by you, and received by law enforcement agencies regarding the accident referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint; d. acopy of all interoffice memoranda; e. a copy of all correspondence received by you or sent by you or any of your agents and employees, Including any insurance agencies, doctors' offices, any employers, agencies hired to select doctors and/or schedule “independent medical examinations” and/or “examinations under oath,” law enforcement agencies, investigative agencies, attorneys, insureds and/or their relatives; Sensitivity: Confidentialmat a copy of any and all PIP forms, including PIP applications, attending physician and/or medical report forms, employer verification/lost wage forms, medical authorization forms, insurance disclosure, policy defense statement and other requests for information sent and/or received by you, your agents and employees to anyone associated with a claim for no-fault insurance benefits under the policy; a copy of the entire underwriting file including the application for insurance and all renewals, endorsements, and any correspondence regarding cancellation of the policy and all checks (front and back) pertaining to any premium refunds; a copy of all notice letters, including fax confirmations or green card receipts, proof of mailing or other evidence confirming delivery pertaining to any requests for attendance at examinations under oath; a copy of all notice letters, fax receipts, certified mail receipts, proof of mailing or other evidence confirming delivery of notices mailed or faxed regarding a request to attend an I.M.E. examination(s); a copy of any and all I.M.E. reports; a copy of any and all Peer Review reports; a copy of any and all examinations under oath or recorded statement (tapes and/or transcripts); . a copy of all checks issued for payment of any no-fault benefits to any insured, medical provider or other beneficiary under this claim; a copy of all letters, explanation of benefits and/or other correspondence sent explaining decisions to pay, reduce, deny, suspend, terminate or cancel payment of benefits; a copy of all medical records, bills, notices of intent to initiate treatment and any other correspondence received by Defendant from any medical provider in connection with services rendered to Leyva Aracelys or applicable insured or policy beneficiary in connection with this claim; a copy of all photographs, videotapes, writings, drawings, maps, vehicle tepair estimates and or other notes that Defendant has in their possession regarding property damage to any of the automobiles in the subject accident, the accident scene, or the injuries sustained by Leyva Aracelys in this lawsuit; a copy of all statements and/or examinations under oath of any witnesses or persons taken by Defendant and/or their agents or persons hired by Defendant in connection with this case; a copy of all security logs and/or sign in sheets for the dates of any Examinations under Oath and/or Independent Medical Examinations. RESPONSE: (a-r) Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 3. A copy of all correspondence, forms, notations, memoranda assignments of benefits, directions to pay, or any other information received by you in any form whatsoever from any physician’s or healthcare provider's office concerning Leyva Aracelys’s physical and/or mental condition. Sensitivity: Confidential RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mailcontemporaneously with this filing. 4. A copy of all correspondence, forms, notations, memoranda, records, documents and all other documents in your file which were transmitted or furnished to anyone concerning this case. RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 5. A copy of all computer diary notes and/or computer log notes in the possession of Defendant concerning this case. RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, harassing, vague and ambiguous. Further, due to its overly broad and ambiguous nature, this request may seek production of documents protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege. Florida Courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim files are not discoverable in a breach of contract case such as this and before the plaintiff either brings a bad faith claim or prior to the bad faith claim becoming ripe. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diag. Ctrs., LLC, 185 So. 3d 575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Notwithstanding said objection, refer to non-privileged documents in claims file attached in response to request for production. 6. A copy ofall letters, applications, documents and any other document regardless of how nominated, received from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's attorney, Leyva Aracelys or Leyva Aracelys’s attorney concerning this case. RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 7. A copy of all surveillance reports claims history reports or other investigative reports prepared by you or on your behalf with regard to the Plaintiff or Leyva Aracelys. RESPONSE: Objection, work product. 8. A copy of any and all surveillance films or photographs taken by you or anyone on your behalf of the Plaintiff or Leyva Aracelys. RESPONSE: Objection, work product. 9. A copy of an Up-to-date PIP payout sheet on Leyva Aracelys. RESPONSE: Attached. 10. A copy of all any and all statements taken by the Defendant of any witnesses with regard to any fact relevant to any fact in this case, prior to the filing of suit in this matter. Sensitivity: ConfidentialRESPONSE: Statements are available for inspection at the office of GEICO Staff Counsel, located at 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 700 Coral Gables, FL 33134 11. A copy of any and all photographs taken by the Defendant showing the extent of damage to any of the vehicles involved in the accident as were taken prior to the filing of suit. RESPONSE: Objection, work product. 12. A copy of any and all photographs taken by the Defendant of the scene of the accident at any time prior to the filing of suit. RESPONSE: Objection, work product. 13. A copy of any and all estimates of repair or statements concerning the nature and extent of damage to any of the vehicles involved in the accident. RESPONSE: Objection, work product. 14. A copy of all any and all writings, memorandums, notes or other materials reflecting examination by the Defendant of any of the vehicles involved in the accident. RESPONSE: Objection; work-product privileged, attorney-client privileged, vague, overbroad, not germane to the issues in the instant case, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding objections, refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 15. Acopy ofall records reflecting the towing of any vehicles involved in the accident from the scene of the accident. RESPONSE: Objection; irrelevant, immaterial, vague, overbroad, not germane to the issues in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 16. A copy of any and all records reflecting payment to the medical providers who conducted the independent medical examinations or peer reviews in this case. RESPONSE: Objection, work product as Defendant has not yet determined if it will rely on any expert in trial. The Defendant will disclose any experts it intends to rely on at trial in accordance with any trial order of the court. Otherwise, without waiving said objection, please see the peer review report attached. 17. Ifa vendor was used to retain the services of a medical provider that conducted an independent medical examination or peer review, then please produce a copy of all payments made to said vendor for the last three (3) years. RESPONSE: Objection, this request seeks to exploit and exceed the “financial bias” limitations of Allstate_v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1999), such that it violates Sensitivity: Confidentialconfidentiality laws, begs creation of documents neither kept nor ever in existence, and endeavors production of irrelevant, immaterial, burdensome, and harassing discovery. Coppersmith vy. Perrine, 91 So.3d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Defendant further objects to this request as it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 18. A copy of any and all pamphlets provided to Leyva Aracelys. RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 19. A copy of any and all letters reflecting Leyva Aracelys’s rights and benefits under the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law. RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 20. A copy of any and all documents, including but not limited to, all applications for insurance signed by Leyva Aracelys. RESPONSE: GEICO objects to producing such application on the grounds that it is not relevant to any issue in the underlying claim, nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to this claim. 21. A copy of any and all documents sent to or furnished to the Plaintiff or Leyva Aracelys after the automobile accident in question. RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 22. If this case involves reductions in medical expenses made by the Defendant, please provide copies of ANY AND ALL documents, regardless of how nominated; including but not limited to: writings, letters, publications, guidelines, treatises, periodicals, books, magazines, compilations, formulas, references, sources, writings, schedules, analysis, software programs, studies, surveys, statistics, geographic analysis, print outs, and/or memorandums which were used to form the basis for the reductions made by the Defendant for each and every service which was reduced by the Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, harassing, vague and ambiguous. Further, due to its overly broad and ambiguous nature, this request may seek production of documents protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege. Florida Courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim files are not discoverable in a breach of contract case such as this and before the plaintiff either brings a bad faith claim or prior to the bad faith claim becoming ripe. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diag. Ctrs., LLC, 185 So. 3d 575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Sensitivity: Confidential23. If the Defendant utilized the services of an outside company to assist the Defendant in adjusting or adjudicating medical bills in this case then please provide copies of any and all agreements or contracts entered into by and between the Defendant and the outside company; documents which reflect how the outside company is compensated; any sales, marketing or sates material generated by the outside company and provided to the Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, harassing, vague and ambiguous. Further, due to its overly broad and ambiguous nature, this request may seek production of documents protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege. Florida Courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim files are not discoverable in a breach of contract case such as this and before the plaintiff either brings a bad faith claim or prior to the bad faith claim becoming ripe. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diag. Ctrs., LLC, 185 So. 3d 575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). 24. A copy of any and all Explanations of Benefits Forms generated by the Defendant which reflect that Defendant allowed the amounts charged for the CPT codes which are the subject of the instant litigation. RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 25. A copy of any and all PIP claims manuals in the possession of the Defendant. RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, harassing, vague and ambiguous. Further, due to its overly broad and ambiguous nature, this request may seek production of documents protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege. Florida Courts have repeatedly held that an insurer’s claim files are not discoverable in a breach of contract case such as this and before the plaintiff either brings a bad faith claim or prior to the bad faith claim becoming ripe. See State Farm Mut, Auto. Ins. Co. v. Premier Diag. Ctrs., LLC, 185 So. 3d 575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). 26. If this case involves reductions or an allegation the Plaintiff charged an unreasonable amount for the medical expenses at Issue, please provide copies of ANY AND ALL documents, regardless of how nominated; including but not limited to: writings, letters, publications, guidelines, treatises, periodicals, books, magazines, compilations, formulas, references, sources, writings, schedules, analysis, software programs, studies, surveys, statistics, geographic analysis, print outs, and/or memorandums which could be used to establish usual and customary prices for CPT codes that are the subject of this litigation. RESPONSE: Objection; improper burden shifting. Pursuant to Derius v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff's burden to prove treatment and bills for treatment are reasonable, related and necessary. 27. If this case involves reductions in medical expenses made by the Defendant or if the Defendant is alleging that any of the amounts charged by the provider was unreasonable as to the amount, please provide copies of ANY AND ALL "Provider Profiles Sort by Maximum Sensitivity: ConfidentialCharge" for the zip code(s), also known as a Procedure Report, of the medical providers for the CPT codes at Issue. RESPONSE: Objection; improper burden shifting. Pursuant to Derius y. Allstate Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff's burden to prove treatment and bills for treatment are reasonable, related and necessary. 28. If this case involves reductions or an allegation the Plaintiff charged an unreasonable amount for the services at issue, please provide a report that lists what other medical providers in the same geographic area as the Plaintiff charged for the CPT codes which were reduced by the Defendant in this case. RESPONSE: Objection; improper burden shifting. Pursuant to Derius y. Allstate Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff's burden to prove treatment and bills for treatment are reasonable, related and necessary. 29. A copy of any and all agreements the Defendant has entered into, with medical providers in the same geographic region as the Plaintiff, within the past three years for payment of medical bills. RESPONSE: GEICO does not maintain Geo-Zip reports. Further, the request seeks irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and has no nexus to the claims or events at issue in this litigation. Each claim is handled on its own individual merits. As GEICO can understand this request, it appears to be seeking confidential, proprietary business information and trade secrets. GEICO does not have an existing report or document with this information as requested and a party cannot be compelled to produce documents that do not exist. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pinder, 746 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). 30. A copy of any and all other document in the possession of the Defendant which addresses what is a reasonable charge for the CPT codes at issue for the time period in question. RESPONSE: Objection; improper burden shifting. Pursuant to Derius v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 723 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), it is Plaintiff's burden to prove treatment and bills for treatment are reasonable, related and necessary. 31. Ifthe Defendant used an outside vendor to retain the doctor that performed an IME, peer review, or to provide expert testimony in this case please provide documentation which would reflect the amount of money the Defendant, the Defendant's parent company, or any of the Defendant’s subsidiaries paid said vendor or vendors forth the last 3 years. RESPONSE: Objection, work product as Defendant has not yet determined if it will rely on any expert in trial. The Defendant will disclose any experts it intends to rely on at trial in accordance with any trial order of the court. Otherwise, without waiving said objection, please see the peer review report attached. Sensitivity: Confidential32. If you have denied payment on the basis of a material misrepresentation, please produce a copy of any and all underwriting guidelines and manuals that Indicate what your companies’ policies are with respect to acceptance of risk and calculation of rate premiums. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 33. A copy of any and all pre-suit demand letter(s) received by the Defendant with regard to the instant claim. RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 34. A copy of any and all documents sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's pre-suit demand letters). RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 35. Acopy of any all HCFA forms and/or CMS 1500 forms submitted to the Defendant with regard to the instant claim. RESPONSE: Refer to the relevant, non-privileged claims file served via electronic mail contemporaneously with this filing. 36. A copy of all insurance licenses for all adjusters that worked on this file that were in effect at the time the adjuster worked on this file. RESPONSE: Objection; irrelevant, immaterial, vague, harassing, overbroad, not germane to the issues in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 37. A copy of any and all other documents in your claim file not protected by the attorney-client communication privilege. RESPONSE: See privilege log. 38. A privilege log listing all documents for which you claim privilege, are not being produced, and/or objected to within this Request for Production. RESPONSE: See privilege log. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Sensitivity: ConfidentialI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Electronic Mail on this the 28th day of January, 2020 to the following designated service email address(es): Majid Vossoughi, Esq., Majid Vossoughi, P.A., mail@piplawsuit.com, majid@piplawsuit.com. Sensitivity: Confidential LAW OFFICE OF HAYDEE DE LA ROSA- TOLGYESI /s/_ Daniel Faltas Daniel Faltas (Employees of GEICO General Insurance Company) Florida Bar No.: 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 700 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: Facsimile: Attorney for Defendant(s): GEICO General Insurance Company, Service Email: Miamipipgeico@geico.com