arrow left
arrow right
  • PEREZ-V-KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS ET AL Print Wrongful Termination Unlimited  document preview
  • PEREZ-V-KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS ET AL Print Wrongful Termination Unlimited  document preview
  • PEREZ-V-KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS ET AL Print Wrongful Termination Unlimited  document preview
  • PEREZ-V-KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS ET AL Print Wrongful Termination Unlimited  document preview
						
                                

Preview

V \z F l L E SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORMA D Twila s White. SBN: 207424 Cgmgégfifimaggfi‘sfifigo LAW OFFICE 0F TWILA S. WHITE 26l5 Pacific Coast Highway. Suite 325 NOV 08 2023 Hcrmosa Beach. California 90254 'l'clcphonc: (2 l 3) 38 l ~874‘) Facsimile: (2 3) 38 -8799 l l BY: Richard Machain. Deputy ‘ . . H ‘ Attorneys tor Plamutt ESPERANZA PEREZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO [ESPERANZA PEREZ. Case No.2 CIVDS|920836 plaintiff [Assigned to the Hon. Thomas S. Garza. Dept. $27] VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS. a PLAINTIFF’S REPLY T0 California Corporation: KAISER DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC. a California Corporation: and SOUTHERN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL SUBPOENA 0F EMPLOYMENT GROUP. INC. a California Corporation; RECORDS FROM RIVERSIDE TAWNA BRUUN. an Individual: and DOES POSTACUTE CARE; DECLARATION l through 50. Inclusive. OF TWILA S. WHITE Defendants. Date: November I6. 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Place: $27 Action Filed: March 20. 20l9 Trial Date: March I I. 2024 \|\’l lH-"S REPLY T0 DEFENDANT? OPPOSITION H) l’l. Pl.x\l\'TlH-"S MOTION T0 Ql ASH Sl BPOI .\';\ ()F [*‘MPLOYHIZNT RECORDS FROM RIVERSIDE P()Sl':\(‘l'T[-. (?\RF. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES l. ARGUMENT Ix) Despite pointing out the broad and ambiguuus nature ot‘lhc subpoenas scrvcd 0n Plaintiff. Defendant refused t0 meet and confer or narrow Ihc scope ot'subpocnas. Ms. Perez is in her 50's and has been treated by Kaiser for many years. Therefore. Kaiser‘s counsel‘s refusal t0 narrow the time frame and scope ofsubpoenas was intentional. with the purpose ot‘engaging in a fishing expedition. Surely. Ms. Perez has brought a wrongful termination lawsuit. but that does not give Kaiser the right t0 unfettered access t0 her lifelong medical records. Kaiser‘s primary purpose was to obtain information it was not entitled I0. After all. Kaiser. the very entity which Ms. Perez ifl suing. is also her treatcr. A. Plaintiff has not waived any constitutional right t0 privacy simply by bringing this lawsuit. Defendant argues: l) Plaintiff waived any purported privacy rights t0 these records by voluntarily placing these records at issue given Ihc claims and damages she has alleged against Defendants: and (2) even ifany privacy rights exist. defendants' right Io a fair trial far outweighs any such privacy concerns. These are standard boilerplate arguments am] yet neither 0f these arguments are true. ln Vinson v. Superior ('uurl. (I987) 43 Cal.3d 833 it was explained that a defendant may n01 pierce the constitutional protections afforded Io a Plainlifl“'.s'olely (m the basis ()fspeculatitm that something ()finterest may surface." (43 (‘al.3d at 840. emphasis added. citing Sch/ugcnlmuf v. Holder (I964) 379 U.S. |04. ll6-I22.) Clearly. “II would be anomalous for a trial coun t0 accept conjecture as a basis for discovery when Ihcrc is no submitted suppon for Ihc underlying assumption." (Mendez r. Sup. ('1. (l988) 206 (‘a|.App.3d 557. 57]. emphasis added.) The above principle was echoed in Davis v. Superior ('om-I (1992) 7 (‘al.App.4th 1008. l0 7. wherein the court held that “/m/ere .speculatiun as t0 the pussibiliry that l some portion 0f the records might be relevant m some substantive issue does not suffice" and will not overcome a privacy right because the only time such a right can bc abridged is l0 accommodate a compelling public interest. (Id. at l017: see Ij/kc/mlz. 2 (‘al.3d at 435: Arlcmlcz. 206 Cal.App.3d at 570-57l; Boardof'Trustcas'. l l9 Cal.App.3d at 525: 7310 v. Sup. ('I. (l997) 55 (‘al.App.4Ih I379. I388: Brill. 20 Ca|.3d at 855-856.). Sec also. Mendez v. Superinr ('(mr‘l. 206 (‘a|.App.3d 557. 570-7] (mere conjecture about what might bc found is an insufficient basis for discovery 0f matters protected by the constitutional right Io prixacy): Fully \2 Superim- (‘uur/(l979) 88 Cal.App.3d PLAIN'I‘II-‘l-"S NOTICE AND \I()T|()\ '|() Ql b\SH [)lfil“l{\[),-\N'I'S‘ Sl'BI’OENA ()F Bl'SlNlCSS AND [-.Ml’l.()\'f\1[{\1 RECORDS 'l'() (‘l'STODMN ()F RECORDS FOR R|\ I:RSHM: POST /\(‘l "Hf (?\le