United States Of America et al v. AM-MED Diabetic Supplies, Inc., et al, No. 9:2015cv81520 - Document 97 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying without prejudice 79 Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 1/25/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Of America et al v. AM-MED Diabetic Supplies, Inc., et al Doc. 97 UN ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT COU RT SOU THERN D ISTRICT O F FLORID A CivilN o.15-8lszo-clv-M arra/M atthew m an UN ITED STA TES OF A M ERICA and the STA TE OF FLORID A ex rel. DAN IEL YA RBROU G H and ex rel. COD IFLETCH ER, Plaintiffs, FILED BY D.C. JAy 25 2918 ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DISI cm AM -M ED D IABETIC SUPPLIES,IN C.d/b/a BEY ON D M ED ICA L U SA ,eta1., s.D.oFduà.-w.eB. Defendants. O R DE R D ENY IN G W ITH O U T PR EJUD ICE D EFEN D A NT S'M O TIO N FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 79l TH IS CA U SE is before the Courtupon D efendants,A M -M ed D iabetic Supplies,lnc. d/b/a Beyond M edicalU SA ,D avid Soblick,K eith Aronoff,Robin Soblick,M BKD ,LLC,and A JT Diabetic,Inc.d/b/a Countrywide M edical's (tdDefendants'') Motion for a Protective Order (skMotion'')gDE 791. ThismatterwasreferredtotheundersignedbyUnitedStatesDistrictJudge K enneth A .M arra. See D E 89. The United States of Am erica and the State ofFlorida ex rel. DanielYarbrough and ex rel.CodiFletcher(iûlkelators''),have filed a response (DE 861,and Defendantshavefiledareply gDE 871. TheCoul'theld ahearing ontheMotion onJanuary 23, The M otion isnow ripe forreview . D efendants'M otion Defendantsare seeking a protective orderto stop Relators and theircounsel,Jam esH oyer, P.A., from disseminating extrajudicial statements and from publicly sharing M edicare 1 Dockets.Justia.com benetk iaries'Protected Health Information. gDE 79,p.1). Defendants also requestthatthe orderdirectcounseltoremoveFacebookandwebsitepostscontainingextrajudicialstatementsand Protected H ealth lnform ation. Id D efendants claim that new s stations have repeatedly published docum entson television,socialm edia,and new sw ebsitesthat,w hile partially redacted, stillrevealthe identity ofthe patients. 1d.atp.2. Defendants also claim thatRelators'counsel have shared the sam e inform ation on their 1aw finn w ebsite and on Facebook. A ccording to Defendants,themediacampaign interfereswith Defendants'ftmdamentalrighttoafairjury and violates Local Rule 77.2(g) and Rule 4-3.6 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. 1d. Defendants further argue that dissem ination of inform ation containing Protected Health lnform ation isa violation ofH IPA A . Id atp.19.1 II. Relators'R esponse ln response,Relators explain that their story earned interest from a career investigative jotmzalistinthefallof20l8. (DE 86,p.7j. AccordingtoRelators,thestorythejournalistwrote focused on tw o actualvictim s ofthe fraud and a doctor w ho inadvertently facilitated the fraud. Only 52 seconds of screen tim e were devoted to Relators. 1d. Relators contend that the printed and video versions of the story reference R elators' 'fallegations''and state that Relators isallege''orare dsaccusing''theirform erem ployersofm isconduct. Id.atp.8. Relatorsargue that Relators'cotmselposted a dcfactualdescription of the nationalproblem of (durable medical equipmentlfraud,Relators'involvementwiththestory,and linkstothestoryon itswebsiteand Facebook page.'' Id. A ccording to R elators,very few users have accessed the w eb page and Facebook post. Id. 1TheHIPPA argum entwasabandoned on Defendants'reply. (DE 87,p.1l). 2 RelatorsfurtherarguethatDefendants(l)cannotmeettheirburden ofestablishing good causefora protective order,(2)havenotmettheextrajudicialstatementpredicaterequired by LocalRule 77.2 in thatDefendants cannotshow thatthe existence ofan actualextrajudicial statementandcannotestablish areasonablelikelihoodthatsuchdisseminationofanextrajudicial statementwould interferewith afairtrial,and (3)havenotestablished aviolation oftheFlorida BarRule4-3.6. gDE 86,pp.11-164. Relatorsalsocontendthat,sincethedocumentsinquestion are public records obtained by the Florida O ffice ofthe A ttorney G eneralin response to a public records request,D efendants'requestfor PersonalH ea1th Inform ation relief is m oot. ld atpp. 16-17. 111. D efendants'R eplv D efendantsarguethatRelatorshave escalated the very conductD efendantscom plained of in theirM otion by unnecessarily attaching the 132-page response to the public records requestto their response to the Motion. (DE 87,p. 1j. Defendants nextassertthat Relators have misinterpreted and unreasonably limited LocalRule 77.24g)and thatDefendantshave metthe requirem ents of the Rule. 1d. at pp.2-6. D efendants point out that W est Palm Beach news stations have posted aboutthe case,which could impactajury. 1d.atpp. D efendants contend thatthe new sstory restson the investigation ofRelators'counsel,w hich allow scounselto controlthe facts presented to the public. 1d.atpp.8-10. Finally,D efendants abandoned their priorargum entaboutthe disclosure ofPersonalH ealth Inform ation.2 Id.atp. 11. 2 Defendants'counselconfirmed atthe January 23,2019hearingthatthey haveabandonedthisHIPA A argument. 3 IV . Discussion A . A pplicable Law FederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(c)(1)providesthatapartyoranypersonmaymovefor aprotective order,and the Stcourtm ay,forgood cause,issue an order to protecta pal' ty or person from annoyance,em barrassm ent,oppression or undue burden or expense.'' The party seeking the protective orderhas the burden to provide the Courtw ith Ségood cause'' for the protection sought.Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c). diGoodcause''hasbeendetinedasaSûsoundbasisorlegitimateneed totakejudicialaction.'' Wrangen v.Pennsylvania LumbermansM ut.Ins.Co.,593 F.Supp.2d 1273,1277 (S.D.Fla.2008)(citingIn reAlexander Grant(f Co.Litigation,820 F.2d 352,356 (11thCir.1985)). Thepartyrequestingaprotectiveordermustmakeaspecificdemonstrationof factsin supportofthe request. 1d. A courtm ustthen balance the com peting factorsinvolved in determining whethergoodcausehasbeen shown.1d.(citingFarnsworth v.Procter drGamble, Co.,758F.2d 1545,1547(11thCir.1985)). In this case,D efendants assertgood cause based on Relator's alleged violation of Local Rule77.2.3 LJnderLocalRule 77 2(g), . A law yerorlaw f11714associated w ith a civilaction shallnotduring itsinvestigation orlitigation makeorparticipatein makingan extrajudicialstatement,otherthan a quotation from or reference to public records,which a reasonable person w ould expect to be dissem inated by m eans of public com m unication if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissem ination w ill interfere w ith a fair trial and w hich relatesto: (l)Evidenceregardingtheoccurrenceortransaction involved. 3 D efendantsdid notmake any argumentatthe January 23, 2019 hearing abouta possible violation ofthe Rules Regulating the Florida Barasthe basis fortheirm otion forprotective order. They lim ited the issue to whetherLocal Rule 77.2 had been violated. TheCourthasindependently considered Rule4-3.6 ofthe RulesRegulating theFlorida BarandfindsthatDefendantshavenotviolatedtheRuleatthisjunctureforthesamereasonsDefendantshavenot violatedLocalRule77.2atthisjuncture,asfurtherexplainedinthisOrder. 4 (2)The character,credibility,or criminalrecord ofa party,witness,or prospective w itness. (3)Theperfonuanceorresultsofanyexaminationsortestsortherefusalor failure ofa party to subm itto such. (4)The lawyer'sopinion asto themeritsofthe claimsordefensesofa party,exceptasrequired by law oradm inistrative rule. (5)Any othermatterreasonably likely to interfere with a fairtrialofthe action. S.D.Fla.L.R.77.2(g). There are a lim ited num berofcasesregarding the issue athand outofthe Southern D istrict of Florida. The Coul'thas carefully review ed the following cases:United States v.Fiorentino, No.14-20025-CR,2014W L 1877411,at*2(S.D.Fla.M ay9,2014);Terly v.CarnivalCorp.,No. 13-20571-CV, 2014 W L l1798519 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2014); Garcia v. Chapman, No. 12-21891-C1V,2013W L 12061867,at*1(S.D.Fla.Oct.22,2013),reportandrecommendation adopte4 No.12-21891-CIV,2013W L 12061868(S.D.Fla.Nov.15,2013);Garciav.Chapman, No.12-21891-C1V,2013 W L 12061868,at*1(S.D.Fla.Nov.15,2013);D.f.v.Slattety,No. l0-61902-ClV,20l1W L 1303167,at*1(S.D.Fla.M ar.31,20l1);Rossbachv.Rundle,128F. Supp.2d 1348(S.D.Fla.2000)* ,UnitedStatesv.Hernandez,124 F.Supp.2d698,702(S.D.Fla. 2000). ,and UnitedStatesv.Gonzalez,85F.Supp.2d 1306(S.D.Fla.1999). B. A nalysis The Courthas carefully review ed the M otion,response,reply,the relevant case law ,and the applicable rules. The Courtis som ewhat troubled by the language on Relators' counsel's website. Thewebsitestatesinrelevantpart,ttgwlebelievegettingcontrolofthefactsisthebest gam e plan forsuccess...lam esH oyer'sfull-tim e investigatorsand ourEm m y-w inning m edia team give yourquitam whistleblowercase unparalleled authority.'' (DE 79-21. The website also contains a link to an investigative newsreportand states,(dlal powerfulinvestigative report appearing on severalFlorida TV stations is exposing the alarm ing problem ofm edicalequipm ent fraud,which costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year...Tw o w histleblow ers represented by the Jam esH oyer1aw tirm w ere interview ed and shared their storiesto help expose the problem .'' Additionally,Relators' counsel posted a link to the investigative new s reporton Jam es Hoyer,P.A.'SFacebookpage. (DE 79-11. Counselfurtherpostedthefollow ing com m entaryon O ctober 10,2018: Billing taxpayers for m edical supplies sent to dead people, endlessly harassing patients to buy supplies they don't want. M edical equipm ent fraud is a huge problem costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year. This is a huge problèm costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Check out this excellent lnvestigative Reportwhere tw o w histleblow ers represented by Jam es H oyer are interview ed to help expose the issued. Counselalso posted on the same date,'sgble sure to check outthispowerfulinvestigative report on the nationw ide problem of m edical equipm ent fraud. W histleblow ers expose the troubling abuse. It's costing al1taxpayers a 1ot ofm oneyl'' 1d. In the m edia reportposted on Relators'counsel's w ebsite and Facebook page,the two Relators in this case,D anielY arbrough and CodiFletcher,directly address evidence regarding the occurrence or transaction involved in this litigation. To the extent that Relators' counsel, Jam es Hoyer, P.A ., participated in this extrajudicialstatement,LocalRule77.2(g)(1)isimplicated. Taking into accountthe language on the firm w ebsite and Facebook page,and the factthat Relatorswereinterviewed by the investigativejournalistatRelator'scounsel's1aw finn forthe story w hich w as then posted on R elators'counsel's law firm w ebsite and Facebook,it appears 4 These two alleged is w histleblowers,''DanielYarbroughandCodiFletcher,aretheRelatorsinthiscase. 6 arguable that Relators' counsel m ay have orchestrated a m edia cam paign about this case. A lthough Relators'counseldispute thatthey orchestrated any m edia cam paign in relation to this case,Relators'statementscomeprecariouslyclosetoviolatingLocalRule77.2(g)and maycross the line established by thatLocalRule. However,given thatthepostsweremadein October2018andthejurytrialin thiscaseis setforNovember12,20l9,the Courtsimply cannotfind,atthisjuncture,thatDefendantshave established sufticientgood cause for a protective order that forces R elators'law fil'm to take its postsoffitsw ebsite and Facebook page. Sçcourts in this districthave previously explained thata party m ustdem onstrate thatthe allegedly-hannfulstatem ents rem ain in active circulation,orhave otherwiseprejudiced orcontinueto prejudicethe community againstthe defendant,in orderto substantiate the SG oogle m istrial'fear.'' Terry,2014 W L 11798519,at *3;see also D .f.,2011 W L 1303167,at*5(findingthat,whileCûextrajudicialstatementsatissueareundoubtedlyarchived indefinitely in an online digitalform at,as are m ostnew s stories and press releases in this digital age,''defendantsarestillrequired to m akea sufticientshow ing thatthe statem entsrem ain in active circulation,orhaveprejudiced orcontinueto prejudice the community againstthe defendants, creatingareasonablelikelihoodthattheycannotreceiveafairtrial.). Defendants have not identified a single case in the Southern D istrict of Florida,and the Courthas notfind a single case in the Southern DistrictofFlorida,through its own independent research,thathas granted the relief sought by D efendants. Here,D efendants cannot m eettheir burden ofshow ing thatposts from O ctober 2018,even ifstillin circulation now in January 2019, are reasonably likely to interfere w ith a fairtrialofthisaction in late 2019 oreven 2020 ifthe trial getsdelayed. The Courtdoes find,how ever,that,in light of the factthat Relators'counsel posted on theirweb page and on socialm edia,the posts atissuecould gain m ore prom inence asthe case gets closerto trial. In otherw ords,the postscould laterim pactD efendants'rightto a fairtrial. W hile the Courtw illnotorderR elators'counselto rem ove theirposts atthispoint,the Court'sruling is withoutprejudicetoDefendants'abilitytorenew theirmotionclosertotrialiftheycanestablisha violationofLocalRule77.2(g)andalsoestablishgoodcauseforaprotectiveorder. Finally, while the Coul' t w ill not enter a protective order at this point,the Courtdoes encourage Relators'counsel,who are ofticersofthe court,to review their w ebsite and Facebook page and determ ine w hethercounselbelieve itisappropriate to m odify orrem ove allorportionsof thepostsatissue.5 R elators'counselshould keep in m ind that, asthiscase getscloserto trial,an issue may arise underLocalRule 77.2(g). This Courtdoesnotwantany issues ofpre-trial publicity occasioned by any party's counselto im pactthe fairtrialrightsofany party to this case. The Courtw antsthis case to be litigated and tried in court,noton socialm edia. Based on the foregoing,itishereby O R D ERED asfollow s: Defendants' M otion for a Protective Order gDE 791 is DENIED W ITHOUT PREJU D ICE to D efendants having the ability to renew theirm otion closerto trialin thiscase ifDefendantshave a good-faith basisto do so. 2. Counselforallpartiesin thiscase are directed to strictly abide by the letterand spiritof LocalRule 77.2 and the RulesRegulating the Florida Barin thiscase. A 11counselare hereby advised thatthe Courtwillbe strictly enforcing LocalRule 77.2 on an ongoing 5 TheCourtalso notesthatthe law firm 'sclaim son itswebsitethattçgetting controlofthe facts''and then utilizing an içEmmy-winningmediateam''tottgiveyourquitam whistleblowercaseunparalleledauthority,''inconjunctionwith othercomments,couldarguablybesubjecttoscrutinyundertheFloridaBaradvertisingguidelines. SeeRules 4-7.13,4-7.14,and4-7.15 oftheRulesRegulatingtheFloridaBar. TheCourtmakesno finding inthisregard,but notes thatitisRelators'counsel'sduty to ensure compliance ofits advertising effortson its website and socialm edia w ith the Florida Bar. See Rule4-7.19 ofthe Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. 8 basis,and any violation ofthe LocalRule m ay resultin contemptproceedings and furthersanctions. D O NE and O RD ER ED in Cham bers atW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach County,Florida, thisAS YayofJanuary,2019. jl - ' W ILLIA M M ATT W M A N United StatesM agistrate Judge 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
