Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01460/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01460-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Minnard
Plaintiff
Rotech Healthcare Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS MINNARD,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S- 06-1460 GEB GGH 

vs.

ROTECH HEALTHCARE INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for December 20,

2007, was plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents. Carla

Minnard appeared for plaintiff. Kristina Launey appeared for defendant. At hearing, the court

ordered the production of certain documents. The court now issues the following explanatory

order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a former employee of defendant Rotech Healthcare Inc. (“Rotech”),

and served as a patient service technician for eight years from May, 1998, until he was

terminated on April 7, 2006. He contends he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for

complaining of violation of overtime compensation policies and practices as well as wage and

hour violations. He also alleges defamation, failure to pay overtime, unfair business practices,

Case 2:06-cv-01460-GEB-GGH Document 48 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 5
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 The delivery tickets in question related to oxygen tanks. 1

2

and infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff seeks responses to two discovery requests for production related to

defendant’s contention that plaintiff was terminated in part because he dated a delivery ticket on

behalf of a patient. Although this practice was condoned by plaintiff’s manager, Dawn Neal, in

1

the past, she emphasized in early 2006 that only patients must sign and date their delivery tickets,

and plaintiff was aware of this change. Plaintiff denies that he dated the delivery ticket, and

claims that this reason was a pretext for retaliation. Plaintiff further contends that he was

accused of signing, not dating the delivery ticket. Plaintiff also asserts that Neal had full

knowledge and found it acceptable to date and sign delivery tickets in cases where patients were

not able, available or had forgotten to sign them. In support, plaintiff points to the testimony of

Neal and his former coworkers who routinely signed and dated delivery tickets and were not

disciplined or terminated over it. 

DISCUSSION

A. Production of Documents

The pertinent portion of HIPAA provides that a covered entity such as Rotech

may disclose protected health information in a judicial proceeding in response to a court order

and only that information expressly authorized by the order. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e). The

covered entity may respond to a discovery request if it has been given assurance that the party

seeking the information has made reasonable efforts to give notice to the individual whose

privacy is at stake, or the covered entity is given satisfactory assurance from the party seeking the

information that reasonable efforts have been made to obtain a qualified protective order that

meets the following requirements:

(A) Prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected

health information for any purpose other than the litigation or

proceeding for which such information was requested; and

Case 2:06-cv-01460-GEB-GGH Document 48 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 5
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 Quest is a division of Rotech Healthcare Inc. Minnard Decl., Ex. 4. 2

3

(B) Requires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the

protected health information (including all copies made) at the end

of the litigation or proceeding.

Id., § 164.512 (e)(ii), (e)(v). See Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485, *5 (E.D. Cal. 2007).

At the hearing, the court directed defendant to produce a certain portion of

delivery tickets outlined in plaintiff’s request for production numbers 4 and 5:

Request No. 4 - All “delivery tickets” dated between January, 2004 and the

present for the West Sacramento Quest office. 

2

Request No. 5 - All “IMBS tickets” dated between January, 2004 and the present

for the West Sacramento Quest office. 

The court limited production to only those delivery tickets and IBMS forms dated

from January, 2006 to the present, for active patients only. Production was to take place by

January 15, 2008, pursuant to a protective order drafted by defendant and reviewed by the court. 

B. Protective Order

On January 11, 2008, defendant submitted a proposed protective order to which

plaintiff objects as beyond the scope of plaintiff’s motion to compel in covering documents,

evidence and deposition testimony which are not limited to the delivery tickets at issue. The

proposed protective order is beyond the scope of the motion; however, it is acceptable in this

respect as it will avoid future motions to compel concerning the same issues of privacy and

HIPAA protection. 

The proposed protective order is unacceptable, however, in permitting any and all

documents designated as confidential to be “filed under seal subject to further order of the court,

pursuant to the requirements and procedures of Eastern District Local Rule 39-141.” Proposed

Protective Order, ¶ 7.b. 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01460-GEB-GGH Document 48 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 5
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

 A party may have the right to protect from public disclosure information which has 3

been produced to the other party only because of discovery and which has not been filed with the

court. Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33, 37, 104 S. Ct. 2199, 2207, 2209 (1984). 

4

Discovery information disclosed in court filings generally is available to the

public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th

Cir.1999) (“[i]t is well-established that the fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the absence of a

court order to the contrary, presumptively public”). 

3

Protective orders safeguard the parties and other persons in light of the otherwise

broad reach of discovery. United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). The

court has great discretion to issue protective orders if discovery causes annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense. B.R.S. Land Investors v. United States,

596 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1979). Good cause, however, is required to obtain a protective order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Foltz v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.

2003); Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Generally, the

public can gain access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless

the party opposing disclosure shows ‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary”). 

 “Good cause” to bar the public from litigation documents must be more than

mere desire. The party seeking protection must show specific prejudice or harm, including, with

respect to individual documents, particular and specific need. Id.; San Jose Mercury News, Inc.,

187 F.3d at 1102; W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial § 11:88. “If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of

information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a

protective order is necessary.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211 (citing Glenmade Trust Co. v.

Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995) (factors)). 

In conjunction with this precedent, E. D. Local Rule 39-141 provides that

documents may be sealed only upon order of the court, pursuant to a motion to file under seal. 

Case 2:06-cv-01460-GEB-GGH Document 48 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Defendant was warned at hearing not to include language in the protective order which permits

any and all documents to be filed under seal. Therefore, the court has modified the proposed

protective order to this extent.

C. Sanctions

Although both parties request sanctions, the court finds substantial justification on

both sides, and denies these requests.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses, filed November 11, 2007, is granted in

part and denied in part as outlined within this order. 

2. Defendant shall produce the specified discovery by January 15, 2008.

3. Production shall be pursuant to the protective order filed with the court

concurrently with this order.

4. Plaintiff’s and defendants’ requests for sanctions are denied.

DATED: 01/15/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Minnard1460.dsy.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01460-GEB-GGH Document 48 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 5