Sports Rehab Consulting LLC et al v. Vail Clinic Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02075-WJM-GPG
SPORTS REHAB CONSULTING LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
and LINDSAY WINNINGER, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VAIL CLINIC, INC. d/b/a VAIL HEALTH, a Colorado nonprofit corporation,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BASED UPON SPECIAL MASTER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL NO. 6
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter has been referred to the Special Master by Magistrate Judge Crews, ECF No.
506, for a Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiffs Sports Rehab Consulting (“SRC”),
LLC, and Lindsay Winninger’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel No. 6 (“the Motion”). ECF No.
485. 	The Special Master has also considered Defendant Vail Health (“Vail Health’s or
Defendant’s”) Response, ECF. No. 495, Plaintiffs’ Reply, ECF No. 499, and the arguments on the
Motion presented at the Parties’ November 28, 2023, status conference.
Defendant argues that the Special Master should Deny the Motion on multiple grounds:
(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion is untimely because Plaintiffs did not move for the requested relief prior to
the close of fact discovery on December 21, 2021, despite knowing the factual issues underlying
their Motion and having the opportunity to do so; (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion is procedurally and
substantively improper because Plaintiffs failed to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the non-party
individuals affected by their Motion and from whom Plaintiffs seek discovery; (3) Plaintiffs’
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 11

2
Motion is procedurally and substantively improper because Vail Health is not in possession,
custody, or control of the personal devices of the affected non-party individuals from which
Plaintiffs seek discovery; and (4) Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish that the discovery
sought by Plaintiffs is proportional to the needs of this case.
Defendant’s also urge the Special Master to further Deny Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions
as moot and because the record confirms that Vail Health informed the non-party individuals
through litigation hold notices of their obligation to preserve electronically stored information,
including any relevant text messages in their possession, custody, or control. 	Defendants also
claim Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish spoliation as Plaintiffs presented no
supporting evidence and never sought the production of the requested text messages from the non-
party individuals in possession, custody, and control of the personal devices on which any such
text messages would reside.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel No. 6 seeks an order compelling Vail Health to produce text
messages from the personal devices of three non-party individuals in this case: Doris Kirchner,
Michael Shannon, and William Cook. 	Ms. Kirchner is the former CEO of Vail Health, Mr.
Shannon is a former director of Vail Health, and Mr. Cook is the current CEO of Vail Health.
Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on October 7,
2019. Vail Health objected to Plaintiffs’ requests arguing that they sought documents not within
Vail Health’s possession, custody, or control, and that were therefore more properly obtained from
third parties. Vail Health represented that, through its conferral and compliance memoranda,
informed Plaintiffs of the repositories and custodians searched in its discovery responses. 	Vail
Health did not represent to Plaintiffs that it collected text messages from Ms. Kirchner, Mr.
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 11

3
Shannon, or Mr. Cook. Plaintiffs were aware of Vail Health’s position. See e.g., ECF No. 218 at
40:16-41:7.
Prior to the close of discovery in December 2021, Plaintiffs filed five motions to compel.
Their motions raised legitimate disputes about the scope of Vail Health’s collection and searches
but made no specific reference to text messages. 	Defendant argued that “Some of the issues
Plaintiffs raise are not properly before the Special Master because they were not presented in any
of Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel #1-5. 	With respect to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, these include…. issue
#18 (Doris Kirchner’s text messages).” 	Plaintiffs omitted raising this issue with regard to text
messages in their list of discovery disputes before the Special Master at the close of discovery.
See ECF No. 381 at 9-18.
After Defendant substituted its counsel in April 2023, Vail Health initially undertook
efforts to comply with the previously long-disputed Orders on Motions to Compel No. 1-5 (which
had been upheld by the Court), ECF Nos. 267, 381, 382, 383, 398, purportedly including collecting
and reviewing nine additional custodians at Plaintiffs’ request, performing a supplemental
collection of emails between Vail Health custodians and its former Board chair Mr. Shannon,
running additional search terms over the Vail Health emails of Ms. Kirchner, Mr. Shannon, and
Mr. Cook, and proceeding with the rolling production of over 100,000 pages of documents. That
is why, along with the suggestion of former Magistrate Judge Crews, the Special Master
encouraged current counsel to meet and confer. Plaintiffs further requested that Vail Health
produce text messages including those of Ms. Kirchner, Mr. Shannon, and Mr. Cook. Vail Health
objected to this request as beyond the scope of Orders No. 1-5 and on the grounds that the requested
text messages were not in their possession, custody, and control. 	Mr. Shannon and Ms. Kirchner
have long been represented by separate counsel. Vail Health apparently contacted them in an
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 11

4
attempt to facilitate a potential agreement regarding the requested text messages as between them
and Plaintiffs. When Vail Health could not secure an agreement for the voluntary production of
the requested text messages, Vail Health suggested that Plaintiffs could serve Rule 45 subpoenas
to which Vail Health would not object, regardless of the closure of fact discovery and Plaintiffs’
failure to serve Rule 45 subpoenas. 	Plaintiffs declined to contact counsel for the affected
individuals or serve Rule 45 subpoenas and instead filed the instant Motion.
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion is Untimely.
An aggrieved party has an obligation to raise discovery issues in a timely manner, and
courts look to the close of discovery to determine whether a motion to compel is timely. 	See
Spacecon Specialty Contractors, LLC v. Bensinger, 2011 WL 782677, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 1,
2011) (citation omitted); Betts v. Work Zone Traffic Control, Inc., 2017 WL 3424996, at *1 (D.
Colo. Aug. 9, 2017) (collecting cases). A court may properly deny a motion to compel discovery
where the motion to compel was filed after the close of discovery. See Santrust Bank v. Blue Water
Fiber, L.P., 210 F.R.D. 196, 199 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citation omitted).
Fact discovery in this matter closed on December 20, 2021. Plaintiffs have known since
at least November 2021 that Vail Health did not produce the requested text messages in response
to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, pursuant to Vail Health’s objections and letters outlining its
search process information. Despite filing five motions to compel while discovery was ongoing,
Plaintiffs failed to include the text messages at issue here from Vail Health through a more timely
motion to compel and chose not to serve any Rule 45 subpoenas on the affected third party
individuals. Accordingly, the Special Master finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion is untimely.
II. 	Plaintiffs Could 	Have Served Rule 45 Subpoena’s During the Discovery
Period
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 11

5
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish the fundamental procedures for compelling
discovery from non-party individuals. A more direct method for Plaintiffs to have sought
production of text messages from the personal devices of the third party individuals would have
been for Plaintiffs to serve Rule 45 subpoenas, given that two of the individuals were long
represented by counsel known to Plaintiffs. 	Zawadzki v. Community Hosp. Assn., 2010 WL
3085719, at *5 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2010) (denying motion for production of a defendant’s own
insurance files in the hands of a third-party and requiring plaintiff to proceed under Rule 45 so that
“the parties are ensured proper process through federal law and rules”). 	Plaintiffs apparently
decided not to serve such subpoenas or file this Motion prior to the close of discovery. They further
chose not to serve the necessary subpoenas when Defendant offered the opportunity to do after
discovery had closed. 	When Vail Health took it upon itself to inquire whether the third parties
would voluntarily provide their personal/private text messages, Vail Health was unsuccessful in
securing such voluntary production from these non-party, former Vail Health executives,
Defendant urged Plaintiffs to pursue a subpoena, including agreeing to not object to such a
subpoena. The Special Master recognizes that this approach might not have likely been successful
considering the historical conflicts between counsel. But Plaintiffs could have then pursued
potential remedies from the court. This itself justifies the Special Master recommending that the
court grant leave for Plaintiffs to follow the Rule 45 process only as to the issue of JOINDER.
Plaintiffs cite no authority in support of their position that Defendant itself must serve subpoenas
on these individuals for discovery sought by Plaintiffs. Rule 45 does directly allow Plaintiffs to
serve subpoenas on the affected non-party individuals, albeit former executives of the highest
level, from whom Plaintiffs seek discovery.
Plaintiffs/SRC now contend that documents produced in the “last several months” places
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 11

6
text messages newly at issue. 	The Special Master finds this is not supported by the record.
Plaintiffs’ own submissions in support of its Motion rely on documents and testimony that were
produced prior to the close of discovery in this matter, from years ago. See Mot. at Exs. 4, 19, 22,
and 23. In those Exhibits showing exchanges between the parties, Plaintiffs did have opportunities
to broach this issue, although they did not pursue motions or subpoenas prior to the close of
discovery. 	Defendant claims Plaintiffs had 	opportunities to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the
affected individuals even after the close of discovery but did not. 	However, the record of the
immediately preceding documents discloses that Plaintiff’s did pursue a course of attempting to
meet and confer with Defendant as they had been directed to do by both Magistrate Judge Crews
and the Special Master. E.g. ECF No. 468. The current counsel’s responsiveness was an
improvement over prior counsels, but with minimal difference in outcome. The Special Master
concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion must be Denied due to failure to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the
non-party individuals Shannon, Kirchner and Cook, from whose personal devices Plaintiffs seek
discovery. However, the Special Master recommends an appropriate remedy in the interest of
justice as outlined above.
III. 	Vail Health is Not in Possession, Custody, or Control of the Personal Devices
and Text Messages of the Non-Parties.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P 34(a)(4)(1), parties have a right to request documents within the
opposing party’s possession, custody, or control. 	Documents are deemed to be within the
possession, custody, or control if the party has actual possession, custody, or control or has the
legal right to obtain them on demand. See e.g., Cotton v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 12-2731-
JW, 2013 WL 3819974, at *6 (D. Kan. July 24, 2013) (denying a motion to compel because
employer did not have actual possession, custody, or control of employee’s personal cell phones).
However, in its discovery responses and objections, Vail Health repeatedly expressed exceptions
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 11

7
and justification for not completely and totally conducting full searches of their records for such
text messages. E.g. See ECF 495-1 (Ex. A pp. 1-3, dated October 9, 2020) ; 495-4 p-1 paras. 2, 3 ,
4.
Courts within the Tenth Circuit confirm that companies do not have possession, custody,
or control of the devices and text messages of their employees. See e.g., Douglas, et al. v. Bd. Of
Trs. Of Cloud Cnty. Cmty. Coll., 2022 WL 4591750 at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 20, 2022) (“The Court
denied Plaintiffs’ request that Defendant College be required to search its board members’ personal
computers, devices, and email accounts in response to the disputed discovery requests, because
they are not in the Defendant College’s possession, custody or control.”); Kickapoo Tribe of
Indians of Kikapoo Rsrv. in Kan v. Nemaha Brown Watershed Dist., 294 F.R.D. 610, 613–14 (D.
Kan. 2013) (finding the personal documents of former board members, staff, and employees were
not in the defendant’s possession, custody, or control); Noaimi v. Zaid, 283 F.R.D. 639, 642 (D.
Kan. 2012) (finding that being a shareholder or an officer in a company was insufficient to find
that documents were in the company’s control).
Defendant argues that this legal authority supports the conclusion that Vail Health does not
have possession, custody, or control of Ms. Kirchner, Mr. Shannon, or Mr. Cook’s personal
devices and thus have no legal right to force these individuals to turn over their personal devices
to Vail Health for collection, review, and production of text messages in this litigation.
Nevertheless, it does not support a conclusion that VH did not ever possess such in their records.
Plaintiffs cite Vail Health’s Code of Conduct, indemnification agreements for Mr. Shannon and
Ms. Kirchner, and Vail Health’s D&O Insurance Policy as purported evidence of Vail Health’s
control over these individuals text messages, but none of these agreements cover personal devices
or provide Vail Health the enforceable right to collect and produce these individual’s personal
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 11

8
devices and text messages for use in this case. Nevertheless, none of these individuals have agreed
to turn over their personal devices for production in this case. See Mot. at Ex. 7, Rep. Ex. 8; Opp.
at Ex. E. Therefore, the Special Master concludes Plaintiffs’ Motion itself should be Denied on
those grounds.
IV. 	Discovery 	of 	These 	Third-Party 	Text 	Messages 	Are 	Necessary 	and
Proportionate to the Needs of the Case.
Even taking into consideration that Plaintiffs did not file a timely motion and/or serve the
requisite subpoenas, Plaintiffs have met their burden to establish that the discovery sought from
the personal devices is necessary and proportionate to the needs of this case. The Special Master
finds that such evidence, in its limited focus relating to expansion of physical therapy facilities
ets., is necessary and proportionate. The Special Master can confidently make such a finding based
upon having seen several areas of evidence while serving in this capacity in both state and federal
courts since the initial appointments July 18, 2019, and July 20, 2021. ECF. No. 123.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), discovery must be relevant and proportional to the needs
of the case. To determine proportionality, a court should examine whether the discovery sought
would help meaningfully resolve the existing dispute. See GSL Grp., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.,
2020 WL 4282291, at *12 (D. Colo. July 24, 2020) (denying motion to compel where discovery
sought would not resolve the existing issues in dispute). This dispute and the evidence surrounding
it is so complex and conflicted that it is not realistic to making a findings that any one piece or
type of evidence would “resolve the issues.” However, the Special Master finds that this particular
type of evidence could contribute to the outcome of this case. Hint- that is why this issue has been
so hard-fought by Vail Health and its counsel for years.
Plaintiffs have preliminarily demonstrated that the production of Mr. Shannon, Ms.
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 11

9
Kirchner, and Mr. Cook’s text messages is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, and
that their production could meaningfully help resolve this case. Vail Health brags that it has now
made a substantial document production in this case, totaling over 100,000 pages. Much of what
Defendant has now produced is what Vail Health should have produced months, or in some
instances years ago, but refused apparently on advice of counsel. To the credit of current counsel,
most, if not all, of this was in compliance with recommendations of 	the SM and Orders of the
court. Accordingly, the Special Master declines to recommend that the Motion be denied because
I find that Plaintiffs have met their burden to show the text messages sought are necessary and
proportionate to the needs of this dispute.
V. 	It is Unclear Whether Vail Health has Met its Duty to Preserve Evidence.
To prove spoilation, the movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
opposing party failed to preserve evidence or destroyed it. See Grabenstein v. Arrow Elecs., Inc.,
2012 WL 1388595, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2012); 	Oldenkamp v. United American Insurance
Company, 619 F. 3d 1243, 1251. Plaintiffs do not meet this moderate bar because they have not
presented evidence to support their spoliation claim-even that Vail Health ever had possession,
custody, or control of these texts.
The record shows that Vail Health fulfilled its obligation to preserve documents by issuing
litigation hold notices to potential custodians in both the state and federal court cases, including to
Ms. Kirchner, Mr. Shannon, and Mr. Cook, the individuals whose text messages are at issue in
Plaintiffs’ Motion. ECF No. 495 Ex. E ¶¶ 3-4. Vail Health’s litigation hold notice advised the
recipients to preserve all relevant information including “documents, paper files, and electronically
stored information” and expressly requested the individuals preserve “employee personal email
accounts, and even cell phone or I-Pads if used for text or instant messenger for business purposes.”
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 11

10
The mere fact that Vail Health does not now possess the devices containing these non-party text
messages does not prove spoilation. 	It exhibits that Vail Health did not have legal possession,
custody, or control over the personal devices and text messages to begin with, ECF No. 495 Ex. E
¶ 5, and Vail Health does not have a legal right to force their production in this case. Plaintiffs
have not taken the alternative steps to collect any relevant text messages from the affected
individuals, much less met their burden to establish spoliation. Consequently, the Special Master
concludes that Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions should be Denied.
Recommendations
Therefore, the Special Master concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be Denied as
follows:
1. 	Vail Health is not required to collect, review, or produce text messages from the
personal devices of Michael Shannon, Doris Kirchner, or Will Cook because
Plaintiffs’ Motion was untimely and should be Denied.
2. 	The Special Master concludes that Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s Motion
should be Denied on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to serve the requisite Rule 45
subpoenas on the affected individuals is not a justifiable basis for Denial.
3. 	Vail Health does not now have nor ever had possession, custody, or control of these
individuals’ personal devices based upon the Declaration of Katie Lawler ECF No.
495 Ex. E ¶ 5, and the Special Master recommends Plaintiff’s Motion be Denied.
Because of the special circumstances and specific findings herein, the Special
Master does recommend that Plaintiffs be allowed a very limited opportunity such
as seven (7) days to pursue the remedy of Rule 45 subpoenas upon Michael
Shannon and Doris Kirchner to turn over their cell phones or specific text messages
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 11

11
requested by Plaintiffs in this case. See ECF No. 512 p. 2, ¶ 2.
4. 	The Special Master concludes that the requested discovery is proportionate to the
needs of this case and recommends that the Motion not be Denied on that basis.
5. 	Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions in general should be Denied on the grounds that
Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to establish possession or destruction as a basis
for sanctions.
Objections to this Report and Recommendation:
Adopting the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the Special Master directs that any party may
file Objections to the Magistrate Judge within 14 days of the date of this Report.
Dated this 29th day of April 2024.
W. Terry Ruckriegle
Special Master
Box 3305
Breckenridge, CO 80424
970-390-9865 phone
terry@ruckriegle.com
Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-WJM-SBP Document 559 filed 04/30/24 USDC Colorado
pg 11 of 11