Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00874/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00874-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

1 

 No. C 04-00874 RS 

ORDER 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 02/11/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

RICHARD B. FOX, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GOOD SAMARITAN L.P., et al, 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 04-00874 RS 

ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW

 Pursuant to the order entered February 4, 2010, the Court has reviewed in camera materials 

related to the two non-pediatric patients. There is no indication defendants engaged in any 

intentional or reckless over-redaction or unwarranted withholding of information. Indeed, in most 

instances, defendants appear to have applied a liberal standard in evaluating how much material to 

produce unredacted to provide context for any references to plaintiff therein. Nevertheless, there are 

a few instances where further production is appropriate: 

 1. Doc. GSH41231. In the first paragraph by speaker “JD,” it is not entirely certain that the 

sentence beginning “He made a bald faced statement . . .” is a reference to plaintiff, but the 

statement described is similar enough to comments made by plaintiff earlier in the meeting that it 

Case 5:04-cv-00874-RS Document 398 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

 No. C 04-00874 RS 

ORDER 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

may be. As such, the redaction running from that paragraph down to the presently unredacted 

paragraph containing the comments of speaker “MA” should be removed. 

 2. Doc. GSH41232-GSH41233. The final paragraph on page 15 (speaker “BS”) through the 

first full paragraph on page 16 (speaker “JD”) should be unredacted. 

 3. Document GSH41263 is a letter that was addressed to plaintiff, among others. Although 

it does not appear particularly pertinent to the issues in this action, neither does it appear to 

implicate any substantial privacy concerns. In any event, to comply with the prior order requiring 

production of materials referring to plaintiff, it should be produced. While it may be difficult to 

analyze how much of a letter addressed to plaintiff is a “reference” to plaintiff, in this instance it is 

appropriate to produce the letter in full. 

 

 Defendants may contact the Courtroom deputy, Martha Parker-Brown at (408) 535-5346 to 

make arrangements to pick up the materials reviewed in camera. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/11/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:04-cv-00874-RS Document 398 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 2