Christopher Craig et al v. City of King City et al

Filing 197

ORDER. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on January 14, 2013. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHRISTOPHER CRAIG, et al., Plaintiffs, 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 No. C -11-04219 EDL ORDER v. CITY OF KING CITY, et al., Defendants. / 13 14 On January 8, 2013, the Court held a pretrial conference at which the parties and the Court 15 discussed, among other things, Plaintiff Craig’s claim for violation of the Confidentiality of Medical 16 Information Act, California Civil Code sections 56.10 and 56. 20. The Court requires further 17 information from Plaintiffs about Plaintiff Craig’s remaining claim under section 56.20. 18 Accordingly, no later than January 16, 2013 at noon, Plaintiffs shall inform the Court as to what 19 exactly in Dr. Glick’s report was beyond the scope of Craig’s second release by his attorney. 20 Plaintiffs shall quote specific language from the report, and shall briefly explain why that quoted 21 language went beyond the scope of the release. Plaintiffs shall also address whether he agrees that 22 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s January 3, 2011 release governs the scope of Plaintiff’s authorization under 23 standard agency principles, as it appears to the Court, and not pursuant to California Civil Code 24 sections 56.11(c)(2) and 56.21(c)(2). No later than January 17, 2013 at noon, Defendants shall 25 respond to Plaintiffs’ filing. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: January 14, 2013 28 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?