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 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ALLSTATE’S
RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND FOR COSTS AND SANCTIONS (ECF No. 136)
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 defendants currently remaining
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. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 11

- 2 -
Now before this Court is Allstate’s renewed motion to compel production of
documents and for costs and sanctions against all remaining Defendants. See ECF
No. 136. A case management conference was held on the motion on October 15,
2025. See ECF No. 147. 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 for
the reasons discussed with counsel for the Parties during that conference, which are
incorporated here by reference, and as follows, Allstate’s renewed motion will be
granted in part and denied in part.
I.
Allstate 	seeks 	to 	compel 	Defendants 	to 	produce 	several 	categories 	of
information. Each of them will be addressed separately.
A. Scheduling Documents
First, Allstate seeks to compel documents reflecting the dates and times of
patient treatment at AS Medical (“Scheduling Documents”). ECF No. 136 at
PageID.4071. AS Medical responded to Allstate’s request by stating that it did not
1 Counsel for both parties consented to this ex parte communication.
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 11

- 3 -
possess such documents. Id. However, Allstate contends that this is not true, based
upon deposition testimony by Dr. Shukr and other witnesses. Id. at PageID.4072.
It was unclear from the briefing whether such Scheduling Documents were
not produced by AS Medical because they did not exist at all, or because they simply
were not retained by AS Medical. At the case management conference, counsel for
AS Medical indicated that he was not entirely sure, but either way, he had asked his
client if they possessed Scheduling Documents, and they unequivocally said that
they did not have any. AS Medical’s counsel also unequivocally stated that
information about when a patient was seen and by whom was captured in the
patient’s electronic medical record (EMR). AS Medical’s counsel represented that
he could find out from his client if a report reflecting only scheduling information
could be generated from the EMR.
Taking AS Medical’s counsel at his word, as this Court has no reason not to,
there do not appear to be any “Scheduling Documents” currently in Defendants’
possession. Thus, there is nothing to compel AS Medical (or any other Defendant)
to produce. However, AS Medical will be directed to take steps to ascertain whether
such scheduling information can be pulled from the EMR system as a report, and if
so, produce the report.
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 11

- 4 -
B. Text Messages
Second, Allstate seeks to compel the production of text messages related to
relevant patient treatment. Id. at PageID.4073. According to Allstate, Dr. Shukr
testified at his deposition that he would sometimes receive texts, yet no text
messages have been produced. Id. at PageID.4074. Similar to above, counsel for AS
Medical represented at the case management conference that his client undertook a
search for any text messages related to patient treatment and currently does not
possess any. AS Medical’s counsel further explained that texting is not Dr. Shukr’s
preferred method of communication regarding patient care because it can result in
delays in a way that telephone calls do not. So again, taking AS Medical’s counsel
at his word, there does not appear to be any texts currently in Defendants’ possession.
Thus, there is nothing to compel.
C. Vendor Communications
Third, Allstate seeks to compel the production of any agreements and
communications between AS Medical and their vendors, including schedules and
communication about repairs for the Nervomatrix machine, the device at the
forefront of this lawsuit. AS Medical responds that it does not have any records from
medical equipment vendors because AS Medical only issued durable medical
equipment that it had in stock and wrote prescriptions for everything else. ECF No.
140 at PageID.5054–55. As for the Nervomatrix machine, counsel for AS Medical
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 11

- 5 -
represented at the case management conference that there were no documents
relating to repair schedules or written communication regarding repairs. Although it
is understandable that Allstate would be skeptical of such an answer because routine
maintenance of medical equipment would presumably be standard, given AS
Medical counsel’s representation, it appears that no such records exist. Accordingly,
there is nothing to compel.
D. AS Medical’s Bookkeeping Records
Fourth, Allstate seeks certain AS Medical bookkeeping records, such as
financial projections, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and tax returns. ECF
No. 136 at PageID.4080. AS Medical responds that it has already produced all the
financial records that have been requested and nothing in Dr. Shukr’s deposition
testimony contradicts this. ECF No. 140 at PageID.5055. Moreover, AS Medical
specifically states that there are no written financial projections, which is reflected
in Dr. Shukr’s testimony that projections about “what we could possibly bring into
the clinic [were] based on…our discussions with other people in clinics.” Id. at
PageID.5056. AS Medical’s counsel also reiterated this during the case management
conference.
Allstate further claims that although AS Medical has produced its federal tax
returns, it has not produced its state tax returns, nor “any of the materials that were
used to prepare the tax returns as requested.” ECF No. 136 at PageID.4080. AS
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 5 of 11

- 6 -
Medical does not mention the state tax returns or underlying records in its response.
See ECF No. 140. The state tax returns were also not addressed at the status
conference with this Court, so it is assumed that any objection to the production of
these documents is waived. Since these records were already found to be relevant
and proportional, AS Medical will again be ordered to produce them.
Accordingly, since this Court will take AS Medical at its word, there are no
bookkeeping documents to compel, with the exception of the state tax returns
discussed above.
E. Privileged Documents
Finally, Allstate challenges Defendants’ withholding of several documents on
the basis of attorney-client communication privilege. As described in more detail in
the stipulated order relating to the Parties’ motions to compel, ECF No. 142, the
Parties undertook an extensive exercise to narrow their privilege disputes. As a result
of this exercise, many previously withheld documents were produced by AS
Medical. As for the rest, AS Medical has provided this Court a spreadsheet listing
the documents still in dispute, along with an unredacted copy of each document for
this Court’s in camera review.
The vast majority of the challenged communications are emails among
attorneys, Defendants, and third parties. For example, in the email message Bates-
stamped ASMEDICALJUNE16SUPP000311, the message was sent by attorney
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 6 of 11

- 7 -
Howard Weingarden, to Michael Papio, a non-attorney employee of AS Medical, but
it was also sent to Tom Preni of Soleve Distributing LLC and copied to Ori Kanner,
the CEO of the company that manufactures Nervomatrix machines in Isreal, both
third-parties.
There are also a great number of emails that do not involve an attorney at all,
but rather are communications between non-attorney employees at AS Medical and
non-attorney employees at a third-party company that provides billing services to
AS Medical. See, e.g., document Bates-stamped ASMEDICALJUN16SUPP000895.
Sometimes these emails appear to relate to a lawsuit brought by either a patient or a
provider, but sometimes not. And even when related to a lawsuit, the message often
simply provides or requests billing information and documentation. There are also
emails between employees of AS Medical, without any attorney listed as a sender or
recipient.
Allstate has objected to Defendants’ designation of all of these types of emails
as privileged attorney-client communication.
The attorney-client privilege only protects communications made by the
client, in confidence, where legal advice is being sought. Reed v. Baxter, 134 F.3d
351, 355-56 (6th Cir. 1998); Mainstay High Yield Corp. Bond Fund v. Heartland
Indus. Partners, L.P., 263 F.R.D. 478 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 28, 2009). And generally, any
voluntary disclosure to a third-party waives the attorney-client communication
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 7 of 11

- 8 -
privilege. In re Grand Jury Proceedings October 12, 1995, 78 F.3d 251 (6th Cir.
1996).
Therefore, emails that do not involve any attorney-client communication are
not privileged. This means that emails about patient information exchanged among
AS Medical employees without any attorney involvement nor any indication that the
emails were prepared at the request of an attorney or in anticipation of litigation, are
not privileged. And to the extent that Defendants claim such messages contain
confidential 	information, that information is protected through the Stipulated
Protective Order that has already been entered in this case. Thus, these emails must
be produced.
As to the emails involving AS Medical’s third-party billers, it is not yet clear
whether those emails are privileged. AS Medical argues that because AS Medical
authorized the biller to speak on its behalf to its attorneys, in relation to litigation in
which AS Medical was a party, the attorney-client communication privilege was not
waived, even though the biller is indisputably a third party. The authority AS Medical
cites for this proposition, however, are cases where courts held that a client’s
communication with a third-party, who was retained by the attorney, was held
privileged. See ECF No. 140 at PageID.5059. 	Here, the third party is acting on
behalf of the client, not the attorney. Thus, these cases are not persuasive. Indeed, it
has long been held that “[c]ommunications made to an attorney in the course of his
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 8 of 11

- 9 -
professional employment by persons other than the client or his agent are not
privileged.” U.S. v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1964) (emphasis added).
However, to the extent that AS Medical is somehow contending that a third-
party entity (and its employees), rather than its own employees, may act as AS
Medical’s agent for purposes of attorney-client communication, this issue has not
been briefed at all. Accordingly, this Court will allow AS Medical to submit
supplemental briefing on this issue, and will allow Allstate a chance to respond,
before this portion of Allstate’s motion is decided. As part of that supplemental
briefing, AS Medical must also address whether its prior production of documents
involving communication with its third-party billers has waived any claim of
privilege for the remaining undisclosed documents. See 360 Const. Co., Inc. v.
Atsalis Bros. Painting Co., 280 F.R.D. 347, 352 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (“[O]nce a waiver
is effectuated, all communications on the same subject matter are subject to
disclosure and are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.”)
As to the emails involving third parties other than AS Medical’s billers, such
as the Nervomatrix CEO, Defendants have not provided any basis for which they
would be excepted from the long-established rule that the presence of a third party
breaks the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, those emails are not privileged and
must be produced.
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 9 of 11

- 10 -
II.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Allstate’s renewed motion to compel and
for sanctions, ECF No. 136, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
It is DENIED as to the scheduling documents, the text messages, and the
vendor communications since it appears there are no documents to compel. It is also
DENIED 	as to the bookkeeping records generally, but is 	GRANTED 	as to
Defendants’ state tax returns and underlying documents.
It is GRANTED as to emails where a third-party other than AS Medical’s
biller is present. Accordingly, the following documents must be produced:
• 	ASMEDICALJUNE16SUPP00110
• 	ASMEDICALJUNE16SUPP00190
• 	ASMEDICALJUNE16SUPP00309
• 	ASMEDICALJUNE16SUPP00311-12
It is also GRANTED as to emails where there is no attorney present and the
purported basis for withholding is confidentiality. Accordingly, the following
documents must be produced (listed by Email Subject as no Bates-number present):
• 	ALICIA MCCAIN RECORDS – Copy.eml
• 	UNASSIGNED PROVIDER SUITS.eml
• 	FW_AS Medical Group completed the Aging report.eml
• 	FW_AS Medical Complete Aging Report.eml
• 	FW_Patients that need assignment.eml
• 	Fw Patients that need assignment.eml
• 	FW_A S Medical Group Denied claims.eml
• 	Fw_Denied claims.eml
• 	Additional Provider Suits – Copy.eml
• 	Additional Provider Suits.eml
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 10 of 11

- 11 -
• 	PART 3 STEVEN MONTGOMERY.eml
• 	PART 5.eml
• 	PART 1.eml
• 	PART 2.eml
• 	PART 4.eml
• 	PART 6.eml
• 	PART 7.eml
• 	patient attorney list.eml
It is also DENIED as to any sanctions against Defendants.
FURTHER IT IS ORDERED that Defendants will be allowed 14 days from
the date of this order to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of whether AS
Medical’s third-party billers may be considered its agent for purposes of the
attorney-client communication privilege. The supplemental briefing must also
address 	whether 	AS 	Medical’s 	prior 	production 	of 	documents 	involving
communication with its third-party billers has waived any claim of privilege for the
remaining documents. Allstate will be allowed 14 days from the date of filing to
respond to any Defendants’ supplemental briefing, and Defendants will be allowed
7 days from the date of filing to reply. If Defendants choose not to submit
supplemental briefing, this Court will issue an order on the papers as they stand.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Dated: October 29, 2025
Case 2:23-cv-10904-SKD-DRG ECF No. 149, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 11 of 11