LA hospice fraud.

Question

How plaintiff can bring to court's attention specific issues of improper responses by defense: 'last known phone number and email of hospital provider as identity', response to 'produce person for deposition, instead of disclosing identity'? 
Will OIG accept similar responses as legally justified? 
If no- why not?

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

In this situation, it seems the defense is not providing proper responses to the plaintiff's discovery requests in a case involving hospice fraud in Los Angeles, CA. Here are a few ways the plaintiff can bring these issues to the court's attention and thoughts on how the Office of Inspector General (OIG) may view the responses: 
 
1. Motion to Compel: The plaintiff can file a motion to compel proper responses to the discovery requests. This motion should outline the specific requests, the deficient responses, and argue why the responses are inadequate under the applicable rules (e.g., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37). The court can then order the defense to provide proper responses. 
 
2. Meet and Confer: Before filing a motion to compel, the plaintiff's attorney should attempt to meet and confer with the defense counsel to resolve the discovery disputes. If these attempts are unsuccessful, the plaintiff should document the efforts in the motion to compel. 
 
3. Sanctions: If the court finds that the defense's responses are improper, it may impose sanctions, such as ordering the defense to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees for bringing the motion to compel or even issuing a default judgment against the defense. 
 
Regarding the OIG's perspective: 
 
1. Insufficient Identity Disclosure: Providing only the last known phone number and email of a hospital provider, instead of their full identity, is likely insufficient. The OIG would expect the defense to provide the individual's full name, job title, and current contact information (if available) to enable proper investigation and depositions. 
 
2. Failure to Produce Deponent: If the defense is required to produce a person for a deposition but fails to do so and does not disclose their identity, the OIG would likely view this as non-compliance with legal obligations. The defense must provide the requested information or seek a protective order if there are legitimate reasons to withhold the information. 
 
In summary, the OIG would likely not accept the defense's responses as legally justified because they appear to be impeding the plaintiff's ability to investigate the fraud allegations and gather evidence. The plaintiff should use the available legal tools, such as motions to compel and sanctions, to ensure the defense complies with its discovery obligations.

Q: LA hospice fraud.