Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC et al v. The Queen's Medical Center et al

Filing 553

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' APPEAL AND THE CANCER CENTER OF HAWAII, LLC'S APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES DECEMBER 11, 2014 ORDER re 463 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court filed by The Cancer Center of Hawaii, LLC, re 460 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Eva Bieniek, M.D., Vincent Brown, M.D., Paul Demare, M.D., Thanh Huynh, M.D., John Lederer, MD, PRO Associates, LLC, Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC, Laeton Pang, M.D. re 449 Order, Terminate filed by Vincent Brown, M.D., John Lederer, M.D., Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC, PRO Associates, LLC, Laeton Pang, M.D., Paul Demare, M.D., Eva Bieniek, M.D., Thanh Huynh, M.D.. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 04/20/2015. This Court DENIES both Plaintiffs' Appeal and TCCH's Appeal as to the magistrate judge's order to respond to the Disputed Financial Discovery Requests (RPD Numbers 15 and 16 an d Interrogatory Number 2). This Court AFFIRMS the magistrate judge's 12/11/14 Discovery Order as to his findings and conclusions regarding the Disputed Financial Discovery Requests. This Court HEREBY RESERVES RULING on Plaintiffs' Appeal and TCCH's Appeal from the magistrate judge's 12/11/14 Discovery Order [dkt. no. 449 ], to the extent that they challenge the order to respond to Defendants' Requests for Production of Documents Numbers 9 through 11 and Interr ogatory Number 3. After the Hawai'i Supreme Court responds to the certified questions, this Court will inform the parties if further briefing regarding the Discovery Appeals is necessary. This Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiffs' Appeal and TCCH 's Appeal, and AFFIRMS the magistrate judge's order, in all other respects. This Court ORDERS Plaintiffs and/or TCCH to comply with the portions of the magistrate judge's order that this Court has affirmed by no later than May 1, 2015. (eps )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
PACIFIC RADIATION ONCOLOGY,
LLC, a Hawai`i Limited
Liability Corporation, et
al.,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE QUEEN’S MEDICAL CENTER, a )
)
Hawai`i Non-Profit
)
Corporation, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 12-00064 LEK-KSC

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL AND
THE CANCER CENTER OF HAWAII, LLC’S APPEAL FROM
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECEMBER 11, 2014 ORDER
On December 11, 2014, the magistrate judge issued his
Order: (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’
Motion to Compel Discovery; (2) Denying Defendants’ Motion for an
Order Compelling Production of Documents by Non-parties Pursuant
to Subpoenas; and (3) Granting Defendants’ Motion to Amend the
Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order Filed September 15, 2014
(“12/11/14 Discovery Order”).

[Dkt. no. 449.]

On December 22,

2014, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Pacific Radiation
Oncology, LLC, a Hawai`i Limited Liability Corporation (“PRO”),
PRO Associates, LLC, a Hawai`i Limited Liability Corporation
(“PRO Associates”), John Lederer, M.D., Laeton Pang, M.D.,
Eva Bieniek, M.D., Vincent Brown, M.D., Paul DeMare, M.D., and

Thanh Huynh, M.D.1 (all collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed their
appeal from the 12/11/14 Discovery Order (“Plaintiffs’ Appeal”).
[Dkt. no. 460.]

On December 24, 2014, Interested Party The

Cancer Center of Hawaii, LLC (“TCCH”) filed its appeal from the
12/11/14 Discovery Order (“TCCH Appeal”).

[Dkt. no. 463.]

Only

the portion of the 12/11/14 Discovery Order addressing
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion to Compel”),
[filed 7/28/14 (dkt. no. 256),] is at issue in Plaintiffs’ Appeal
and the TCCH Appeal (collectively “the Discovery Appeals”).
Defendants/Counter Claimants The Queen’s Medical
Center, a Hawai`i Non-Profit Corporation (“QMC”), and Queen’s
Development Corp., a Hawai`i for Profit Corporation (“Queen’s
Corp.,” collectively “Defendants”),2 filed their redacted
memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Appeal on January 5,
2015, and their unredacted memorandum in opposition under seal on
January 9, 2015.

[Dkt. nos. 470, 475.]

On January 7, 2015,

Defendants filed their memorandum in opposition to the TCCH
Appeal.

[Dkt. no. 473.]

Plaintiffs and TCCH filed their replies

on January 20, 2015 and January 21, 2015, respectively.

[Dkt.

1

This Court will refer to Drs. Lederer, Pang, Bieniek,
Brown, DeMare, and Huynh collectively as “the PRO Physicians,”
and to Drs. Lederer, Pang, Brown, DeMare, and Huynh collectively
as “the PRO Member Physicians.” Dr. Bieniek is not a member of
PRO.
2

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Partial Dismissal Without
Prejudice of Individually Named Defendants, [filed 3/11/15 (dkt.
no. 539),] only QMC and Queen’s Corp. remain.
2

nos. 483, 487.]
The Court has considered the Discovery Appeals as nonhearing motions pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).

After careful consideration of the

appeals, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant
legal authority, this Court HEREBY RESERVES RULING on the
Discovery Appeals, to the extent that they address the production
of patient records, and DENIES the Discovery Appeals in all other
respects.
BACKGROUND
The parties and the Court are familiar with the factual
and procedural background of this case, and this Court will only
discuss the events that are relevant to the Discovery Appeals.
The disputed portions of the 12/11/14 Discovery Order
require Plaintiffs and, where necessary, TCCH,3 to respond to the
following discovery requests:
9.
All documents relating to any patient
that received medical care at both QMC’s radiation
therapy department and The Cancer Center of
Hawai`i.
10. All communications amongst Plaintiffs
relating to patients that received medical care at
both QMC’s radiation therapy department and The
Cancer Center of Hawai`i.

3

Plaintiffs acknowledge that “PRO Associates is the entity
through which Plaintiffs hold a minority membership interest in
TCCH.” [Pltfs.’ Appeal at 11 n.4.]
3

11. All documents relating to the transfer
fo any patient from QMC to The Cancer Center of
Hawai`i.
. . . .
15. All PRO and PRO Associates’ tax returns
from 2008 through the present.
16. All PRO and PRO Associates’ Statement of
Income from 2008 through the present.
[Motion to Compel, Decl. of Claire Wong Black, Exh. 14 (Defendant
The Queen’s Medical Center’s First Request for Production of
Documents and Things to Plaintiffs Pacific Radiation Oncology,
LLC and PRO Associates, LLC, dated 9/26/13) at Exh. A at 2.]
2.

Identify monthly revenues:
(a)

billed by Plaintiffs for
professional services provided by
PRO Physicians and performed at QMC
from 2008 to the present;

(b)

billed Plaintiffs for professional
services provided by PRO Physicians
and performed at facilities other
than QMC from 2008 to the present;

(c)

billed by Plaintiffs for technical
charges and facilities fees from
2008 to the present;

(d)

collected by Plaintiffs for
professional services provided by
PRO Physicians and performed at QMC
from 2008 to the present;

(e)

collected by Plaintiffs for
professional services provided by
PRO Physicians and performed at
facilities other than QMC from 2008
to the present;

4

(f)

collected by Plaintiffs for
technical services and facilities
fees from 2008 to the present.

3.
Identify all patients that received
medical care at both QMC and The Cancer Center of
Hawai`i from 2001 to the present, and describe the
procedure(s) performed at each location and the
reason for providing care at multiple locations.
[Id., Exh 15 (Defendant The Queen’s Medical Center’s First
Request for Answers to Interrogatories to Plaintiff Pacific
Radiation Oncology, LLC, dated 9/26/13) at 8-9.]
the same interrogatories to PRO Associates.4

QMC proposed

[Id., Exh. 16

(Defendant The Queen’s Medical Center’s First Request for Answers
to Interrogatories to Plaintiff PRO Associates, LLC, dated
9/26/13) at 8-9.]
As to Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”)
Numbers 9, 10, 11, and Interrogatory Number 3, the magistrate
judge denied Defendants’ Motion to Compel as to the free-riding
allegations in the Counterclaim, filed February 25, 2014.

See

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Counterclaim Filed February 25, 2014
[Dkt. 175–1], filed 11/30/14 (dkt. no. 431) (“11/30/14 Summary
Judgment Order”), at 23 (granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment as to the portion of Counterclaim Count II - alleging

4

Insofar as Interrogatory Numbers 2 and 3 are identical for
both the discovery request served on PRO and on PRO Associates,
any reference to “Interrogatory Number 2” or “Interrogatory
Number 3” refers to that interrogatory in both discovery
requests.
5

unfair methods of competition (“UMOC”) - based on free-riding).5
The magistrate judge granted the Motion to Compel as to RPD
Numbers 9, 10, and 11 and Interrogatory Number 3 and ordered
Plaintiffs to provide “documents and/or complete detailed answers
. . . , to the extent responses are outstanding and to the extent
they relate to Defendants’ counterclaim or Plaintiffs’ damages”
for “the period 2009 to the present.”

[12/11/14 Discovery Order

at 9.]
As to RPD Numbers 15 and 16, the magistrate judge
ordered Plaintiffs to produce information in their possession,
custody, or control, and ordered TCCH to make the production
where the information is not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody,
or control.

In addition, the magistrate judge ordered PRO

Associates to produce any agreements between TCCH and PRO
Associates that have not been produced yet.

As with the previous

group of documents, the scope of production is from 2009 to the
present.

[Id. at 9-11.]

The magistrate judge also ordered TCCH

to produce unredacted versions of Exhibits 5 and 9 through 12, of
which it had previously produced redacted versions to Defendants.

5

The 11/30/14 Summary Judgment Order is also available at
2014 WL 6749117. In it, this Court also granted Plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment as to the breach of contract claim in
Counterclaim Count I, and denied their motion as to the portion
of Counterclaim Count II based on the PRO Member Physicians’
self-referral practice. Id. at *7, *12. Thus, the UMOC claim
based on the self-referral practice is the only count in the
Counterclaim remaining.
6

[Id. at 13-14.]
As to Interrogatory Number 2, the magistrate judge
concluded that “Defendants are entitled to discover charges for
services and fees so they can ascertain how much income they lost
as a result of self-referrals to other facilities.”

[Id. 12-13.]

As with the prior categories, the period of production is from
2009 to the present, and TCCH is to respond if Plaintiffs “are
unable to meaningfully and/or completely respond.”

[Id. at 13.]

Plaintiffs’ Appeal argues that this Court should modify
the contested portions of the 12/11/14 Discovery Order because,
inter alia: the universe of patients that the order applies to is
too broad;6 when the magistrate judge issued his order, this
Court had not yet issued its January 16, 2015 Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of Jonathan A. Cunitz (“1/16/15 Cunitz Order”);7 the
magistrate judge ordered Plaintiffs to produce documents he found

6

Plaintiffs argue that the universe of patients covered by
any production required pursuant to the 12/11/14 Discovery Order
should be limited to patients who had a consultation with one of
the PRO Physicians at QMC and then subsequently received
treatment at a TCCH facility “between February 25, 2010 (four
years before the filing of the counterclaim) and September 15,
2011 (the date Plaintiffs were informed they would not be allowed
to treat future patients at QMC)” (“Plaintiffs’ Proposed Patient
Universe”). [Pltfs.’ Appeal at 2.]
7

The 1/16/15 Cunitz Order is docket number 479. It is also
available at 2015 WL 225496. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of Jonathan A. Cunitz (“Cunitz Motion”) was filed on
July 9, 2014. [Dkt. no. 231.]
7

relevant to Defendants’ counterclaim, but he failed to limit the
order to a period within the four-year statute of limitations for
claims under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 480; and the magistrate
judge erroneously found that income Plaintiffs receive from TCCH,
agreements between Plaintiffs and TCCH, and TCCH’s financial
information are relevant.

TCCH joins in Plaintiffs’ arguments,

and also emphasizes that requiring the production of information
regarding “confidential costs and competitive data . . . could
provide a roadmap for QMC to compete with TCCH.”

[TCCH’s Appeal

at 8.]
STANDARD
The standard applicable to an appeal of a magistrate
judge’s pretrial order is set forth in this Court’s Order
Reserving Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Appeal from Magistrate Judge’s
Order Regarding Discovery Issues [Dkt. 363], filed January 30,
2015 (“1/30/15 Discovery Appeal Order”).

[Dkt. no. 493 at 7-8.8]

This Court therefore need not repeat that standard in the instant
Order.
DISCUSSION
I.

Patient Records and Information
RPD Numbers 9 through 11 and Interrogatory Number 3

address patient records and information.

8

This Court has

The 1/30/15 Discovery Appeal Order is also available at
2015 WL 419654.
8

certified the following questions to the Hawai`i Supreme Court:
1.

May a third party who is in lawful possession
of a patient’s confidential medical records
use, or be compelled to produce, these
records in litigation where the patient is
not a party?

2.

If a third party may use and/or produce a
patient’s confidential medical records in
litigation, is a de-identification process
sufficient to protect the patient’s privacy
interests where the third party already
allowed its agents access to the patient’s
records and its agents inadvertently made
part of the patient’s medical information
public?

[Certified Questions to the Hawai`i Supreme Court from the United
States District Court for the District of Hawai`i, filed 3/31/15
(dkt. no. 541), at 8.]

Because the issues raised in the

Discovery Appeals regarding RPD Numbers 9 through 11 and
Interrogatory Number 3 are inextricably intertwined with the
issues raised in the certified questions, this Court cannot rule
on those portions of the Discovery Appeals until the Hawai`i
Supreme Court responds to the certified questions.

This Court

therefore RESERVES RULING on the portions of the Discovery
Appeals regarding RPD Numbers 9 through 11 and Interrogatory
Number 3.
After the Hawai`i Supreme Court responds to the
certified questions, this Court will inform the parties if
further briefing regarding the portions of the Discovery Appeals
regarding RPD Numbers 9 through 11 and Interrogatory Number 3 is

9

necessary.
II.

Financial Information
The remaining discovery requests at issue in the

Discovery Appeals - RPD Numbers 15 and 16 and Interrogatory
Number 2 - relate to financial information regarding Plaintiffs
and TCCH (“Disputed Financial Discovery Requests”).9

The

magistrate judge ruled that the information sought in those
requests is relevant to both Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’
counterclaim.

[12/11/14 Discovery Order at 9, 12.]

This Court

reviews the magistrate judge’s rulings regarding relevancy under
the clearly erroneous standard.

See, e.g., Williams v. United

States, Civ. No. 08–00437 ACK–BMK, 2012 WL 406904, at *3 (D.
Hawai`i Feb. 8, 2012) (“A magistrate judge’s ruling on discovery
issues, including relevancy, is clearly erroneous only when the
district court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” (brackets, citation, and quotation
marks omitted)).
The Disputed Financial Discovery Requests seek to
obtain “PRO Associates’ financial records, and the financial
records in TCCH’s possession” because Defendants believe that the
discovery “will show that Plaintiffs’ claimed ‘economic losses’

9

This Court notes that the required production of
unredacted versions of Exhibits 5 and 9 through 12, [12/11/14
Discovery Order at 13-14,] is in response to RPD Numbers 15 and
16 [id. at 9-10].
10

are offset by increased TCCH distribution income.”
Mem. in Opp. at 6.]

[Redacted

Plaintiffs argue that the magistrate judge

committed clear error in ordering Plaintiffs or TCCH to respond
to the Disputed Financial Discovery Requests because Plaintiffs
have limited the damages they seek to their loss of professional
fees for treatments they previously performed at QMC.

Further,

Plaintiffs argue that any information related to their income
from TCCH is not relevant because, in their view, only “the
facility fees QMC argues it would have collected had the
identified universe of patients not been ‘transferred’ by
Plaintiffs to TCCH” are part of Defendants’ alleged damages for
their counterclaim.

[Pltfs.’ Appeal at 2.]

Thus, any technical

and/or facilities fees that TCCH collected, even if from patients
formerly seen at QMC, are not relevant.
A.

Plaintiffs’ Reliance on Prior Statements by this Court
Plaintiffs argue that the magistrate judge’s finding of

relevance is contrary to this Court’s “oral ruling” that TCCH’s
financial information is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ damages.
[Pltfs.’ Appeal at 3.]

Plaintiffs rely on statements -

designated below in bold - that this Court made during the
hearing on the Cunitz Motion:
Now let’s turn to Mr. Cunitz. . . . So this
is the - these are the issues that I see with
regard to this expert.
First, with regard to the defendants’
objections, I mean, I don’t see how this is any
11

different than if it was a commercial litigation
about, I don’t know, unfair trade practices or
some kind of interference with a business, that if
you have a company with a subsidiary and that
subsidiary fails or goes out of business or is
unable to continue its operations, and they’re
claiming it’s because the defendants did something
or failed to do something or give them, that that
[sic] whole company – you don’t have to look at
all the income that whole – the parent company
has, you look at the subsidiary, how the
subsidiary is doing before the alleged event,
after the alleged event.
So I see a lot of objections saying, well,
they should have looked at, you know, everything
that these doctors - all their sources of income
and so forth and so on, but it’s such a defined
injury, that they’re saying that they had this
flow of patients that was cut off as a result of
what they claim to be actionable measures that
were taken by Queen’s. So - so as I understand
it, that Mr. Cunitz looked at what that income
stream was for those patients.
[12/1/14 Hrg. Trans., filed 12/4/14 (dkt. no. 443), at 30-31
(emphasis added).]

The primary issue that this Court addressed

in considering the Cunitz Motion was whether there was sufficient
indicia of reliability in Dr. Cunitz’s expert report and
deposition testimony to allow Plaintiffs to present Dr. Cunitz’s
testimony and opinions regarding their damages at trial.

This

Court did not consider the issue of what evidence Defendants may
present in their defense, let alone the scope of the discovery
that Defendants are entitled to obtain to develop their defense.
Thus, any statement that this Court made at the hearing on the
Cunitz Motion regarding TCCH’s financial information was not a

12

substantive ruling, and this Court does not construe the
statement as the law of the case.

This Court therefore DENIES

Plaintiffs’ Appeal, to the extent that it alleges that the
magistrate judge violated a purported oral ruling by this Court.
B.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) Analysis
This Court agrees with the magistrate judge that:

“‘Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.’

Relevancy, for purposes of Rule 26(b),

is a broad concept that is construed liberally.”

See 12/11/14

Discovery Order at 3-4 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)).

This

Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record and has
given significant deference to the magistrate judge’s finding of
relevance.

See Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th

Cir. 2010) (stating that “[t]he clear error standard is
significantly deferential” (citations and quotation marks
omitted)).

Based on that review, this Court does not have “a

definite and firm conviction” that the magistrate judge made a
mistake in ruling that the documents and information that
Defendants seek in the Disputed Financial Discovery Requests are
relevant.

See Williams, 2012 WL 406904, at *3.
This Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the

documents and information that he ordered Plaintiffs - and, where
necessary, TCCH - to produce are reasonably calculated to lead to

13

the discovery of admissible evidence.

This Court agrees with

Defendants that the Disputed Financial Discovery Requests are
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence
establishing the financial benefits that Plaintiffs received from
their treatment of patients at TCCH.

That evidence is relevant

both to Defendants’ defense of offset for Plaintiffs’ claimed
damages and to Defendants’ counterclaim as evidence of the
motivation behind the PRO Member Physicians’ allegedly improper
self-referral practices.
Further, insofar as the ordered responses to the
Disputed Financial Discovery Requests are relevant both to
Plaintiffs’ claims and to Defendants’ counterclaim, this Court
rejects Plaintiffs’ and TCCH’s argument that the scope of
production should be limited to four years before Defendants
filed the Counterclaim.

This Court concludes that the magistrate

judge’s ruling that the scope of the required production begins
in 2009 is consistent with the applicable law.

This Court

therefore DENIES the Discovery Appeals as to their challenges to
the relevance of the Disputed Financial Discovery Requests.
C.

Protection of the Amended Stipulated Protective Order
TCCH also argues that the magistrate judge committed

clear error by requiring it to produce unredacted versions of
Exhibit 5 and Exhibits 9-12 because allowing Defendants to have
access to those documents would give QMC an unfair advantage in

14

its competition with TCCH.

Those exhibits are redacted versions

of the following documents:
- Exhibit 5, First Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company
Agreement of The Cancer Center of Hawaii, LLC;
- Exhibit 9, Consulting Services Agreement (Medical Director of
Technology) between TCCH and PRO;
- Exhibit 10, a subsequently amended and restated version of
Exhibit 9;
- Exhibit 11, Professional and Medical Director Services
Agreement for Pacific Radiation Oncology LLC and The Cancer
Center of Hawaii, LLC; and
- Exhibit 12, Professional Services Agreement (Calypso Beacon®
Electromagnetic Transponders) between TCCH and PRO.
This Court notes that Plaintiffs submitted Exhibit 5
and Exhibits 9-12 to this Court with a letter dated December 29,
2014 (“12/29/14 Letter”).

The 12/29/14 Letter states that

Defendants “submitted” those exhibits to the magistrate judge’s
chambers “under seal” for his consideration in reviewing the
Motion to Compel, and therefore they “are not available in the
Court docket.”

This Court points out that this type of

submission results in an incomplete record, and it CAUTIONS the
parties that, in the future, similar documents must be submitted
with a motion to seal.

This Court, however, FINDS that it is

necessary for this Court to review Exhibit 5 and Exhibits 9-12 in
its consideration of the Discovery Appeals.

Further, this Court

FINDS that there is good cause to file those exhibits under seal
because of the nature of the information that they contain

15

regarding the relationship between PRO and TCCH.

See Oliner v.

Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the
“good cause standard applies to private materials unearthed
during discovery, and to previously sealed discovery attached to
a nondispositive motion” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).

This Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to

file the 12/29/14 Letter, and Exhibits 5 and 9 through 12
attached thereto, under seal.
This Court has ruled, supra Section II.B, that the
unredacted versions of Exhibits 5 and 9 through 12 are relevant
to both Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ counterclaim.

This

Court, however, finds that allowing Defendants’ employees to have
access to the redacted financial information “could cause
substantial harm to [Plaintiffs and TCCH] or give [Defendants]
an unfair competitive advantage over” them.

See Amended

Stipulated Protective Order, filed 11/8/13 (dkt. no. 134), at 4,
¶ 7.

This Court therefore ORDERS that the unredacted versions of

Exhibits 5 and 9 through 12 shall be designated “Attorneys’ Eyes
Only Information,” as that term is defined in the Amended
Stipulated Protective Order.

In light of those protections, this

Court DENIES TCCH’s Appeal as to its challenge to the magistrate
judge’s ruling that TCCH must produce unredacted versions of
Exhibits 5 and 9 through 12.

16

D.

Summary
This Court DENIES both Plaintiffs’ Appeal and TCCH’s

Appeal as to the magistrate judge’s order to respond to the
Disputed Financial Discovery Requests (RPD Numbers 15 and 16 and
Interrogatory Number 2).

This Court AFFIRMS the magistrate

judge’s 12/11/14 Discovery Order as to his findings and
conclusions regarding the Disputed Financial Discovery Requests.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, this Court HEREBY
RESERVES RULING on Plaintiffs’ Appeal and TCCH’s Appeal from the
magistrate judge’s 12/11/14 Discovery Order [dkt. no. 449], to
the extent that they challenge the order to respond to
Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents Numbers 9
through 11 and Interrogatory Number 3.

After the Hawai`i Supreme

Court responds to the certified questions, this Court will inform
the parties if further briefing regarding the Discovery Appeals
is necessary.
This Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiffs’ Appeal and TCCH’s
Appeal, and AFFIRMS the magistrate judge’s order, in all other
respects.

This Court ORDERS Plaintiffs and/or TCCH to comply

with the portions of the magistrate judge’s order that this Court
has affirmed by no later than May 1, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, April 20, 2015.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

PACIFIC RADIATION ONCOLOGY, ET AL. VS. THE QUEEN’S MEDICAL
CENTER, ET AL; CIVIL 12-00064 LEK-KSC; ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL AND THE CANCER CENTER OF HAWAII, LLC’S APPEAL
FROM THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECEMBER 11, 2014 ORDER

18