Fox v. Good Samaritan Hospital et al

Filing 399

ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 02/11/2010. rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*E-Filed 02/11/2010*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1
No. C 04-00874 RS ORDER

RICHARD B. FOX, v. Plaintiff,

No. C 04-00874 RS ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW

GOOD SAMARITAN L.P., et al, Defendants. ____________________________________/ 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants may contact the Courtroom deputy, Martha Parker-Brown at [phone] 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

2
No. C 04-00874 RS ORDER