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)

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