Arnal v. Aspen View Condominium Association, Inc. et al

Filing 61

ORDER RECOMMITING the 38 The Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion to Compel, for further clarification on the Defendants reliance on the HIPAA privacy rule in withholding information in the documents in question, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 4/6/2016. (evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 15-cv-1044-WYD-MJW
ALVARO J. ARNAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASPEN VIEW CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.;
ASPEN SNOWMASS CARE, INC., d/b/a FIRST CHOICE PROPERTIES &
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER RECOMMITING THE MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE WITH
INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING RELIANCE ON HIPAA PRIVACY RULE

THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with Magistrate Judge Michael
J. Watanabe’s Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 38) (“Order”),
issued on December 3, 2015, which is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge Watanabe reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 29),
the response and reply, and reviewed in camera the disputed documents and
Defendant’s privilege logs, and ultimately sustained all of Defendant’s evidentiary
objections. In Plaintiff’s objection to the Order, Plaintiff noted that nineteen documents
or groups of documents were redacted in part or in whole by Defendant on the basis of
the HIPAA privacy rule. Plaintiff argues that since Defendants are not “covered entities”
under the rule, Defendants cannot use the rule as a basis to withhold documents. See
Weatherspoon v. Provincetown Master Owners Ass’n, Inc., 2010 WL 936109 (D. Colo.

March 15, 2010); Stonebarger v. Union Pacific Corp., 2014 WL 3579374 (D. Kan. July
21, 2014); Ehrlich v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 302 F.R.D. 620 (D. Kan. 2014).
Defendants did not address this argument in their response to the motion to compel or
in the response to the objection to the Order. Similarly, Magistrate Judge Watanabe did
not specifically address the applicability of the HIPAA privacy rule to the withheld
documents, nor did he indicate that he instead found the withheld documents were
rightfully withheld under some other privilege after consideration by in camera review.
Since Magistrate Judge Watanabe had the benefit of reviewing the documents in
camera, he is in the best position to provide further clarification as to whether and if the
HIPAA privacy rule was appropriately relied upon by Defendants in withholding the
documents in question.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Order is hereby Recommitted for further
clarification on the Defendants’ reliance on the HIPAA privacy rule in withholding
information in the documents in question.

Dated: April 6, 2016

BY THE COURT:
s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge