On March 20, 2019 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Perez, Esperanza,
and
Brown, Tawna,
Bruun, Tawna,
Does 1 Through 50,
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc A California Corporation,
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals A California Corporation,
Southern California Permanente Medical Group Inc., A Caifornia Corporation,
for Wrongful Termination Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
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
Document Filed Date
November 08, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 20, 2019
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
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