Rose v. Dignity Health

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 24, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-00775
StatusUnknown

This text of Rose v. Dignity Health (Rose v. Dignity Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rose v. Dignity Health, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Ava Rose, M.D., No. CV 21-0775-PHX-JAT 9 Plaintiff,

10 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER 11 Dignity Health, a California corporation, and Does I through X, 12 inclusive,

13 Defendants.

14 On November 2, 2021, this Court denied the parties request for a protective order 15 without prejudice. (Doc. 29). The parties have renewed their request for a protective order 16 and have narrowed the items they seek to mark as confidential. (Doc. 40). Specifically, 17 the parties seek to mark as confidential: “1) events, diagnoses, health conditions, and 18 medical treatment Plaintiff received when she was under the age of 18; and 2) any proposed 19 findings or interim consent decree terms, made or presented by the Arizona Medical Board 20 or any of its related entities, which to date have not been entered or agreed upon, related to 21 complaints against Plaintiff by or issues related to patient care Plaintiff provided to non- 22 Dignity Health patients.” (Id. at 2). 23 Regarding Plaintiff’s medical records when she was a minor, the Court does not find 24 the parties have made a good cause showing that a protective order is justified under 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Certainly courts have granted protective orders to 26 mark confidential or seal information of individuals who are currently minors. However, 27 Plaintiff is not currently a minor. As stated in this Court’s previous Order (Doc. 29), and 1 as the parties have agreed, Plaintiff has put her medical history at issue in this case. (See 2 e.g., Doc. 40 at 2 (“some of Plaintiff’s medical records (which the Parties agree relate to 3 her claims and are otherwise discoverable) contain information related to medical care 4 Plaintiff received as a minor.”). As stated in the prior Order, the Court begins with the strong presumption of the public’s right of access to court records that will form the basis 5 of this Court’s (or the jury’s) ultimate decision. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 6 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Krieger v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 7 WL 1623158, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 9, 2012) (“Plaintiff put his medical condition at issue 8 when he filed for benefits. [citation omitted]. The mere assertion that Plaintiff considers 9 medical and personal information sensitive does not amount to a compelling reason to seal. 10 [citation omitted]”). Given that Plaintiff is currently an adult and making informed 11 decisions about bringing this lawsuit, the Court finds no basis to delineate between her 12 adult medical records and her juvenile medical records. 13 Regarding proposed findings and interim consent decrees that have never been 14 entered by the Arizona Medical Board, based on the parties’ representations, the Court will 15 deem those to be settlement negotiation documents. In some circumstances, settlement 16 documents are entitled to protection. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics 17 Corp., 2007 WL 4166030, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (recognizing “the federal policy of 18 encouraging settlements by safeguarding the confidentiality of settlement agreements”). 19 Accordingly, the Court will permit the parties to exchange this information subject to the 20 protective order terms detailed below. 21 Thus, the parties have agreed to be bound by the terms of the following Protective 22 Order (“Order”) in this action to facilitate document production and disclosure, and to 23 protect the respective interests of the parties in their confidential information. This Order 24 shall remain in effect unless modified pursuant to the terms contained in this Order. 25 Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for protective order (Doc. 40) is granted in part 27 and denied in part as specified herein. 1 The following Definitions apply in this Order: 2 A. The term “Confidential Information” means the following: any proposed findings 3 or interim consent decree terms, made by the Arizona Medical Board or any of its 4 related entities, which to date have not been entered and/or agreed upon, and which 5 are unrelated to Plaintiff’s care of any Dignity Health patients or any events 6 occurring within a Dignity Health facility. 7 B. The term “Counsel” means all counsel of record throughout the litigation, including 8 outside counsel of record, any party’s in-house counsel, and other attorneys, 9 paralegals, secretaries, and support staff assigned to and necessary to assist in the 10 litigation. 11 The following provisions apply in this litigation: 12 1. Upon the receipt of records that may contain Confidential Information, as defined 13 in this Order, Counsel for Defendant shall produce it to Counsel for Plaintiff, who shall then have ten (10) business days to review the records and to designate 14 Confidential Information in accordance with this Order. The portion(s) of any 15 record that is deemed to be Confidential Information shall be specifically identified 16 by page number and item in writing. Such pages will be stamped 17 “CONFIDENTIAL BY ORDER.” 18 2. Unless ordered by the Court, or otherwise provided for herein, the Confidential 19 Information disclosed will be held and used by the person receiving such 20 information solely for use in connection with the above-captioned action. 21 3. Whenever a deposition taken on behalf of any party involves the disclosure of 22 Confidential Information of any party: 23 (a) The deposition or portions of the deposition must be designated as containing 24 Confidential Information subject to the provisions of this Order. Such designation 25 must be made on the record whenever possible, but a party may designate portions 26 of depositions as containing Confidential Information after transcription of the 27 proceedings. A party will have until thirty (30) days after receipt of the deposition 1 transcript to inform the other party or parties to the action of the portions of the 2 transcript to be designated “CONFIDENTIAL BY ORDER.” 3 (b) The portions of deposition transcripts containing Confidential Information must 4 bear the legend “CONFIDENTIAL BY ORDER” as appropriate, but the original or any copy ultimately presented to a court for filing may be filed under seal only upon 5 motion as set forth herein. 6 4. All Confidential Information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL BY ORDER” must 7 not be disclosed by the receiving party to anyone other than those persons 8 designated within this Order, must be handled in the manner set forth below, and 9 must not be used for any purpose other than in connection with this litigation, unless 10 and until such designation is removed either by agreement of the parties or by order 11 of the Court. 12 5. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL BY ORDER” shall not be disclosed to 13 any person, except: 14 (a) The requesting party and Counsel (as defined in Paragraph (C) above); 15 (b) Consultants or experts assisting in the matter, to the extent deemed necessary by 16 counsel; 17 (c) Any person from whom testimony is taken or is to be taken in these actions, except 18 that such a person may only be shown that Confidential Information during and in 19 preparation for his/her testimony and may not retain the Confidential Information; 20 (d) Any court reporter employed in this litigation and acting in that capacity and his or 21 her staff; and 22 (e) The Court and any Court staff and administrative personnel or the jury at trial. 23 6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rose v. Dignity Health, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-dignity-health-azd-2022.