Vafa Ghaemmaghami v. Dignity Health

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00052
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Vafa Ghaemmaghami, No. CV-24-00052-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Dignity Health,

13 Defendant. 14 15 The parties ask the court to resolve another discovery dispute in this case between 16 plaintiff Vafa Ghaemmaghami and defendant Dignity Health (“Dignity”) regarding 17 Dignity’s provision of paid time off for physicians. The parties contest whether Dignity 18 must provide discovery responses for physicians whose contracts do not specifically 19 designate “Dignity Health” as the employer. (Doc. 91 at 2.) 20 In December 2025, this court ordered Dignity to provide discovery responses for 21 “all Dignity physicians” rather than limiting responses to physicians employed by Dignity 22 Health Medical Group of Arizona. (Doc. 82 at 2.) Dignity now effectively argues its 23 responses should be limited to physicians whose contracts name “Dignity Health” as the 24 employer. (Doc. 91 at 2, 4.) Ghaemmaghami argues this response is too limited because 25 Dignity Health may qualify as a physician’s employer even if it is not designated as the 26 employer on a contract. (Doc. 91 at 2-3 (citing A.R.S. § 23-371, which defines “employer” 27 as an “entity acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an 28 employee”).) For instance, Ghaemmaghami suggests physicians’ contractually-designated 1 employer may be a separate (but presumably Dignity-related) entity, with Dignity still 2 processing the physicians’ payroll, operating and governing the relevant facilities, 3 providing benefit plans, and applying Dignity leave policies. (Doc. 91 at 3.) 4 Ghaemmaghami has only named “Dignity Health” in the complaint; he cannot now 5 request that Dignity produce information solely in the possession, custody, or control of a 6 separate entity. In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Control is 7 defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand.”) (simplified). But there may 8 be physicians who are contractually “employed” by entities which are sufficiently related 9 to Dignity that Dignity maintains actual possession, custody, or control over responsive 10 documents. See United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 11 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A corporation must produce documents possessed 12 by a subsidiary that the parent corporation owns or wholly controls.”). And it is possible 13 that Dignity qualifies as an employer over these physicians under A.R.S. § 23-371, making 14 that information relevant to Ghaemmaghami’s claims. Accordingly, regardless of a 15 physician’s contractually-designated employer, Dignity must produce information in its 16 possession, custody, and control where all of the following are true: Dignity leave policies 17 apply to the physicians; Dignity processes the physicians’ payroll; and Dignity governs or 18 operates facilities in which the physicians work. 19 The parties are in the best position to identify the appropriate deadline based on their 20 knowledge of the volume of responsive documents and likely time necessary to review the 21 production before other deadlines arise. The parties must confer and file a joint proposed 22 deadline for the production to be complete. If the parties cannot agree, they may submit 23 separate deadlines in a supplemental joint discovery dispute pleading. 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 IT IS ORDERED no later than January 26, 2026, the parties shall file a joint || statement identifying a proposed deadline for the production of all responsive documents 3 || asset forth above. If the parties cannot agree on a deadline, the joint statement must identify each party’s proposed deadline. 5 Dated this 21st day of January, 2026. 6

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-