Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV00750, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV00750 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date: 4-15-24
Case #23CHCV00750,
Richard Leyva vs. Sylmar Health and Rehabilitation Center, et al.
Trial Date: 4-1-25
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Sylmar Health and Rehabilitation Center, Inc.
RESPONDING
PARTY: Plaintiff Richard Leyva
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Protective
Order exempting Defendant from answering Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories
(Set One), Nos. 62-63 and 78-81
RULING:
Motion for protective order is granted.
SUMMARY OF
ACTION
This action
arises out of the care and treatment of Plaintiff Richard Leyva (Plaintiff) at
Defendant Sylmar Health and Rehabilitation Center, Inc.’s (Defendant) 24-hour
nursing facility. Plaintiff has alleged causes of action related to elder abuse
and negligence. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and the owner of the facility
failed to protect him from multiple falls, the final of which resulted in a
traumatic brain injury.
As part of discovery,
Plaintiff propounded a first set of Special Interrogatories on Defendant on
June 6, 2023. Plaintiff has sought class action style discovery (though this is
not a class action). The interrogatories at issue, for which Defendant has
sought a protective order, are as follows:
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62:
Please IDENTIFY each and every person who
shared a room with the PLAINTIFF during his ADMISSION at the FACILITY.
SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 63:
Please IDENTIFY the RESPONSIBLE PARTY of
each and every person who shared a room with the PLINTIFF during his ADMISSION…
SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 78:
Please IDENTIFY each and every RESIDENT at
the FACILITY during the PLAINTIFF’s ADMISSION at the FACILITY.
SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 79:
Please IDENTIFY the RESPONSIBLE PARTY for
each and every RESIDENT at the FACILITY during the PLAINTIFF’s ADMISSION at the
FACILITY.
SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 80:
Please IDENTIFY each and every resident at
YOUR FACILITY who suffered a fall during PLAINTIFF’s ADMISSION.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 81:
Please IDENTIFY the RESPONSIBLE PARTY for
each and every resident at YOUR FACILITY who suffered a fall during PLAINTIFF’s
ADMISSION.
Plaintiff seeks
contact information for every other resident who resided at Defendant’s
facility at the same time as Plaintiff. Plaintiff also seeks information on the
resident’s responsible parties. Defendant argues in its motion for protective
order that this case does not require such expansive and invasive discovery,
and that the case is only about Defendant’s care of one person – Plaintiff.
Defendant argues that in other discovery requests Plaintiff has made, Plaintiff
recognized the need for redaction of private information of third parties. (See
Motion at p. 11.)
Defendant also
argues that the residents and responsible parties are not experts. Next,
Defendant argues that privacy rights must be carefully balanced, and absent a
“compelling need,” private information should remain confidential. Defendant
argues that the patients’ information is also protected under HIPAA and
California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). Finally,
Defendant argues that the need for privacy outweighs other concerns.
Defendant’s
Request for Judicial Notice: Defendant has requested that the Court take
judicial notice of various trial court rulings granting protective orders in
similar situations. The Court grants this request for judicial notice but does
not believe that it is in any way bound by them.
Plaintiff
argues in his opposition that the information is relevant to show Defendant’s
pattern and knowing practices of understaffing and abuse. Plaintiff argues that
he needs the information because there is a compelling public interest in
preventing abuse in these facilities and that outweighs the privacy interests
of the residents. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the interrogatories are not
overbroad or burdensome.
Defendant
argues in its reply that Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining the information does
not outweigh the residents’ privacy interests, and that the identity and
contact information of responsible parties is protected health information
which cannot be disclosed. Defendant also argues that the interrogatories violate
the Constitution, are prevented by California law, and are irrelevant,
overbroad, and improper. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is improperly
soliciting other residents and their responsible parties as potential
plaintiffs. The court offers no opinion
on this contention.
ANALYSIS
The Discovery
Act allows “[a]ny party [to] obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other
party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (CCP §
2030.010(a).) “An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a
certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a
contention is based.” (CCP § 2031.030(b).)
CCP § 2030.090
states in pertinent part:
“(a) When interrogatories have been
propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural
person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion
shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
(b) The court, for good cause shown, may
make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural
person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or
oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but
is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:
(1) That the set of interrogatories, or
particular interrogatories in the set, need not be answered.
* * * *
(4) That the response be made only on
specified terms and conditions.”
CCP § 2017.020
states in pertinent part:
“(a) The court shall limit the scope of
discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, intrusiveness of that
discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
First,
Plaintiff claimed that each resident and/or responsible party could be a
witness to the conditions of the facility and the competency of the caregivers
and could also opine as to whether there was sufficient staff to provide
adequate care. However, the standard of care is an issue that requires expert
testimony. (See Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.) Other
residents and their responsible parties would not be able to evaluate the care
provided to Plaintiff.
Next, when a patient’s
privacy interests are at stake, the information sought must be directly
relevant to one of the issues in the action. (Board of Trustees v. Superior
Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525.) The prospect that the discovery
request may lead to admissible evidence is not sufficient. (Ibid.)
Further, even when discovery of private information is directly relevant to the
case, it is not automatically allowed. (Ibid.) Rather, the Court must
engage in a “‘careful balancing’ of the ‘compelling public need’ for discovery
against the ‘fundamental right of privacy.’” (Ibid., quoting Santa
Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 130.) In other words, the privacy
“interest must be measured against other competing or countervailing interests
in a ‘balancing test.’” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 371.)
Conduct alleged
to be an invasion of privacy is to be evaluated based on the extent to which it
furthers legitimate and important competing interests.” (Life Technologies
Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652, disapproved in
part by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 (Williams).)
Courts carefully balance the right of a civil litigant to discover relevant
facts against the right of third parties to maintain reasonable privacy
regarding their sensitive personal affairs. (Valley Bank of Nev. v. Superior
Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657.) Disclosure may be ordered if a
“compelling public interest” would be served thereby. (Hill v. National
Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 22.)
The Court must
consider the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will
have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by
the party resisting disclosure and availability of alternative, less intrusive means
for obtaining the requested information. (Valley Bank of Nev., supra,
15 Cal.3d at 657.)
“Even when the
balance does weigh in favor of disclosure, the scope of disclosure must be
narrowly circumscribed.” (Life Technologies Corp., supra, 197
Cal.App.4th at 652.) Thus, the invasion of the right of privacy “must be drawn
with narrow specificity.” (Board of Trustees, supra, 119
Cal.App.3d at 526, quoting Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844,
856.)
Plaintiff
argues that the applicable factors weigh in favor of obtaining the requested
information because it could show a pattern of abuse on the part of Defendant.
First, it appears that only Plaintiff’s injuries are at issue in the case, not
any wider pattern of abuse. Second, as Defendant has argued, the other
residents could not testify as to the care given to Plaintiff by Defendant in
relation to the relevant standard of care, as they are not experts. Third, as
to be discussed in more detail below, giving the names of the patients and/or
their responsible parties (i.e., their powers of attorney, guardians, conservators,
etc.) would be a violations of the residents’ privacy rights under both the
Article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution and statutes protecting
those rights.
Additionally, pursuant
to Life Technologies, Plaintiff has not addressed or made a showing as
to why information about Defendant’s staffing practices cannot be obtained from
Defendant’s own records or through other deposition or non-confidential sources. Also,
Plaintiff could seek more limited discovery by asking for the identity of any
witnesses to Plaintiff’s falls, with the names of residents or responsible
persons redacted, pending a court order to disclose.
In Williams,
supra. 3 Cal.5th 531, the court disapproved Life Technologies and
other decisions to the extent they held that a party seeking discovery of
private and confidential information must always show a compelling interest for
doing so. Instead, the court held that “Courts
must instead place the burden on the party seeking discovery of private,
confidential information asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent
and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must
weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies . . . []. What suffices to justify an invasion will
. . . vary according to the context. Only obvious invasions of interests
fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest. To
the extent prior cases require a party seeking discovery of private information
to always establish a compelling interest or compelling need, without regard to
the other considerations articulated in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic
Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633, they
are disapproved.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557, citations
omitted.)
In other words,
the need for a compelling interest should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The information that Plaintiff seeks in this case would be an obvious invasion
of personal autonomy that would need to be supported by a compelling interest.
Obtaining the personal information and contact information of residents at a
24-hour care facility and their responsible parties would need the support of a
compelling interest. A party seeking discovery
of private medical information must show a countervailing compelling
interest. (Williams, supra, 3
Cal.5th at 554 [stating that medical information is sensitive]; Grafilo v. Soorani (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th
at pp. 507-508 [compelling interest
required for state medical board to obtain patient psychiatric information as
part of a board investigation].)
At the federal
level, HIPAA prohibits the disclosure of “protected health information” except
as permitted by HIPAA regulations. (45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a).) Permitted
situations include, for example, disclosing such information for treatment,
payment, or health care operations. (Ibid.). “Protected health
information” is defined as “individually identifiable health information”
maintained by a covered entity. (Id. at §160.103). “Individually
identifiable health information” is itself defined as “information that . . .
[r]elates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or
condition of an individual; or the past, present or future payment for the
provision of health care to an individual; and (i) That identifies the
individual; or (ii) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to
believe the information can be used to identify the individual.” (Id.;
see also 42 U.S.C. §1320d(6).)
Under HIPAA, an
entity can “de-identify” health information by removing protected health
information from its records. (45 C.F.R. §164.514.) HIPAA states, however, that
records are devoid of “individually identifiable health information” only if
certain identifiers of the individual and “the relatives, employers, or
household members of the individual” are removed, including names, street
addresses, and phone numbers. (Id. at §164.514(b)(2)(i)).)
The names and
contact information of the residents of Defendant’s facility, as well as the
names and contact information of their responsible parties, would be protected
health information under HIPAA. Plaintiff has failed to show that disclosure of
that information would be proper.
The residents’
information would also be protected under California law, as CMIA protects
“individually identifiable information,” which is defined as medical
information that includes or contains any element of personal identifying
information sufficient to allow identification of the individual, such as the
patient’s name, address, electronic mail address, telephone number, or social
security number, or other information that, alone or in combination with other
publicly available information, reveals the individual’s identity.” (CCP §
56.05(f).) No resident contact information could be disclosed under this law
either.
Additionally,
parties are only required to identify person having knowledge of any
discoverable matter. (CCP § 2017.010.) It is unlikely that the other residents
or their responsible parties would have discoverable information related to
Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff has also not made any showing that the other
residents were witness to the claims making up Plaintiff’s case.
Defendant’s
motion for a protective order exempting Defendant from answering Special
Interrogatories, Nos. 62-63 and 78-81, is granted.
Moving party to
give notice.