Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Lint Chiropractic PC, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. et al.,
Plaintiffs, 	Case No. 2:23-cv-10904
v. 	Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge
AS MEDICAL GROUP, PLC et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 135)
In this RICO case, Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance and its affiliates (“Allstate”)
accuse several medical and chiropractic clinics, their suppliers, and their managers
of orchestrating a racketeering scheme to exploit Michigan’s no-fault insurance law,
M ICH. COMP. LAWS § 500.3101 et seq., by generating and submitting hundreds of
fraudulent medical bills for reimbursement. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lint Chiropractic
PC, No. 2:23-CV-10904, 2024 WL 2787789, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 30, 2024). As
a result of motion practice and settlements, the only remaining Defendants in this
case are AS Medical Group, PLC; Comprehensive Pain Management of Michigan,
LLC; and Ali Shukr, M.D., (collectively Defendants) who are all being represented
by the same attorney.
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 148, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
Now before this Court is Defendants’ motion to compel discovery. See ECF
No. 135. A case management conference was held on the motion on October 15,
2025. See ECF No. 147. For the reasons discussed with counsel for the Parties during
that 	conference, 	which 	are 	incorporated 	here 	by 	reference, 	and 	as 	follows,
Defendants’ motion to compel discovery will be denied.
Defendants’ motion was filed in June 2025. ECF No. 135. Defendants
challenged Allstate’s redactions of portions of individual claims files relating to the
patients at issue in this case, which had been withheld as privileged work product or
attorney-client communication. Defendants also argued that during the deposition of
Allstate’s corporate representative, Catia Monforton, she improperly “hid behind the
attorney client privilege at several key junctures.” ECF No. 135 at PageID.3933.
A hearing was held on this motion, as well as a discovery motion filed by
Allstate which is the subject of a separate order, on July 22, 2025. See ECF No. 139.
At that hearing, counsel for both Parties agreed to provide each other with “a
spreadsheet identifying each document subject to the opponent’s claims of privilege
that it reasonable believes to be both (1) relevant to this action and (2) an improper
designation of privilege.” ECF No. 142 at PageID.5111–12. The parties were
required to respond to the spreadsheet, and augment their “explanation for why
privilege is applicable to each document.” Id. at PageID.5112. A reply was allowed
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 148, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
but not required. Id. Following that, the parties were required to meet and confer to
address any remaining disputed documents. Id.
Through this process, the parties were able to come to mutual agreement on a
great number of documents that had previously been in dispute. Nevertheless, in
September 2025, the parties submitted their spreadsheets, as well as unredacted
copies of each document that was still in dispute, to the Court for in camera review.
Following this Court’s review of the documents, counsel for the parties appeared for
a case management conference on October 15, 2025. During that conference, this
Court was able to further hear about the bases for the Parties’ disagreement, as well
as confidentially question counsel for each party about particular documents and
relevant information.1
Based upon this Court’s thorough 	in camera 	review of the unredacted
documents, the statements made by counsel at the October 15 conference, and a full
explanation 	of Allstate’s 	internal 	claims 	process, 	including 	the 	roles 	of 	key
departments such as SIU and MCU, and information regarding the types of litigation
involved in the patient claim files, this Court is satisfied that each of the portions of
the documents claimed to be privileged by Allstate are properly designated as such.
They are also redacted as narrowly as possible. Accordingly, Allstate will not be
required to produce these documents to Defendants in an unredacted form.
1 Counsel for both parties consented to this ex parte communication.
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 148, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
With respect to the deposition of Allstate representative Catia Monforton, this
Court has not been provided with the transcript of the testimony, nor any specific
information regarding what issues or documents she claimed privilege over. Given
this Court’s determination that the information withheld by Allstate from their
document production was privileged, at this point, this Court will deny Defendants’
motion without prejudice. Should Defendants still wish to challenge any particular
portion of Monforton’s testimony, they may refile their motion with more specific
information and arguments.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No 135, is
DENIED. It is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent it seeks to compel
Allstate to produce unredacted versions of Allstate’s individual claim files, and it is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 	to the extent it seeks to compel more
particularized answers from Allstate’s corporate representative.
SO ORDERED.
This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned case.
/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Dated: October 29, 2025
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 148, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 4