Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02645/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02645-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA GUTIERREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02645-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 41

Defendants’ motion for a protective order is scheduled for a hearing on March 17, 2017. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for 

resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court DENIES defendants’ motion.

The first amended complaint alleges claims for violations of the federal Emergency 

Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, and negligence. 

Plaintiffs have noticed the deposition of “the person(s) most knowledgeable re all peer review 

proceedings pertaining to the events regarding CYNTHIA GUTIERREZ involving her care and 

treatment and lack thereof at SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.” In conjunction with this 

notice, plaintiffs have also made a request for production of documents seeking writings, 

recordings, and reports that are part of the peer review process. 

Defendant seeks a protective order preventing plaintiff from taking the noticed deposition 

and obtaining the peer review documents on the ground that the discovery is prohibited by the 

privilege set forth in California Evidence Code § 1157. Section 1157 provides that “[n]either the 

proceedings nor the records of organized committees of medical . . . staffs in hospitals . . . having 

Case 3:16-cv-02645-SI Document 44 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital . . . 

shall be subject to discovery.” Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 209 Cal. App. 

4th 687, 693-94 (2012) (quoting Cal. Evid. Code § 1157(a)). The peer review privilege (also 

referred to as the self-critical analysis privilege) “embodies the [California] Legislature’s belief 

that external access to peer investigations conducted by staff committees stifles candor and 

inhibits objectivity and that the quality of in-hospital medical practice is improved by insulating 

staff investigations with confidentiality.” Id. (quotations omitted).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, federal common law generally governs claims 

of privilege. “Where there are federal question claims and pendent state law claims present, the 

federal law of privilege applies.” Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 2005). 

In Agster, the Ninth Circuit considered whether an Arizona state peer review privilege prohibited 

the disclosure of a “mortality review” regarding the death of a prisoner. The court noted that “[n]o 

case in this circuit has recognized the [medical peer review] privilege.” The court declined to 

create a federal common law peer review privilege, finding it significant that “Congress has twice 

had occasion and opportunity to consider the privilege and not granted it either explicitly or by 

implication.” Id.; see also Leon v. Cnty. of San Diego, 202 F.R.D. 631, 635-36 (S.D. Cal. 2001) 

(“In the context of other federal question cases, courts have found that section 1157’s absolute bar 

on discovery is in conflict with the more liberal policy of discovery inherent in the Federal 

Rules.”); Love v. Permanente Med. Gp., No. C-12-05679 DMR, 2013 WL 4428806, at *3-4 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) (discussing cases addressing peer review privilege and holding that California 

privilege did not apply in case involving federal and state claims).

Defendant urges the Court to adopt the reasoning of several district courts which have held 

that state peer review privileges barred peer review discovery where the material sought was 

relevant only to state negligence claims and not to EMTALA claims. See, e.g., Bennett v. Kent 

County Mem. Hosp., 623 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.R.I. 2009); Guzman-Ibarguen v. Sunrise Hosp. & 

Med. Ctr., No. C-10-1228 PMP-GWF, 2011 WL 2149542 (D. Nev. June 1, 2011). However, the 

Court cannot reconcile those decisions with binding Ninth Circuit authority holding that federal 

privilege law applies to both federal and pendent state law claims in cases in which subject matter 

Case 3:16-cv-02645-SI Document 44 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

jurisdiction is based on federal question jurisdiction. See Agster, 422 F.3d at 839. Further, based 

upon the present record, the Court cannot conclude that the discovery sought is irrelevant to the 

EMTALA claim.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for a protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02645-SI Document 44 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 3