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

Filing 693

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT The Court HEREBY GRANTS the remaining portions of: Plaintiffs' Appeal from Magistrate Judge's Order Regardin g Discovery Issues [Dkt. 363 ], filed October 17, 2014; Plaintiffs' Appeal from Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt 449 ], filed December 22, 2014; and TCCH's Appeal from Magistrate Judg e's Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt 449 ], filed December 24, 2014. The portions of the magistrate judge's October 7, 2014 order and December 11, 2014 order that remained after this Court's January 30, 2015 order and April 20, 2015 order on the discovery appeals are HEREBY SET ASIDE, as more specifically set forth supra Discussion Section III. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 11/23/2016. (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). Modified on 11/23/2016 (eps, ).

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 RULING ON REMAINING ISSUES IN PENDING
APPEALS FROM THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDERS
On October 7, 2014, the magistrate judge issued his
Order Regarding Discovery Issues (“10/7/14 Discovery Order”).
[Dkt. no. 363.]

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim

Defendants Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC, a Hawai`i Limited
Liability Corporation (“PRO LLC”); 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.
(all collectively “Plaintiffs”)1 filed their appeal from the

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 LLC, and is not named as a defendant in the Counterclaim.
[Counterclaim, filed 2/25/14 (dkt. no 175-1), at ¶ 7.]

10/7/14 Discovery Order (“10/7/14 Discovery Appeal”).

[Dkt. no.

380.]
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.]

Plaintiffs filed

an appeal from the 12/11/14 Discovery Order on December 22, 2014,
and Interested Party The Cancer Center of Hawaii, LLC (“TCCH”)
filed its appeal on December 24, 2014 (collectively, “12/11/14
Discovery Appeals”).

[Dkt. nos. 460, 463.]

This Court reserved ruling on a portion of the 10/7/14
Discovery Appeal and portions of the 12/11/14 Discovery Appeals,
pending the Hawai`i Supreme Court’s response to certified
questions from this Court.

[Order Reserving Ruling on

Plaintiffs’ Appeal from Magistrate Judge’s Order Regarding
Discovery Issues [Dkt. 363], filed 1/30/15 (dkt. no. 493)
(“10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order”); Order Regarding Plaintiffs’
Appeal and the Cancer Center of Hawaii, LLC’s Appeal from the
Magistrate Judge’s December 11, 2014 Order, filed 4/20/15 (dkt.

2

no. 553) (“12/11/14 Discovery Appeals Order”).2]

On June 13,

2016, the Hawai`i Supreme Court issued its opinion responding to
the certified questions (“Response Opinion”).

138 Hawai`i 14,

375 P.3d 1252 (2016), reconsideration denied, 138 Hawai`i 50, 375
P.3d 1288 (July 1, 2016).
On September 6, 2016, Defendants/Counter Claimants The
Queen’s Medical Center (“Queen’s” or “QMC”) and Queen’s
Development Corp. (collectively “Defendants”)3 filed a
supplemental memorandum addressing the Response Opinion.
no. 628.]

Plaintiffs and TCCH filed their respective

supplemental memoranda on September 20, 2016.
656.]

[Dkt.

[Dkt. nos. 655,

Also on September 20, Intervenors John and Mary Does 1

through 19 (collectively “the Patient Intervenors”) filed their
supplemental memorandum.

[Dkt. no. 657.]

After careful consideration of the parties’
submissions, the remaining portions of the 10/7/14 Discovery
Appeal and the 12/11/14 Discovery Appeals are HEREBY GRANTED, and
the remaining portions of the 10/7/14 Discovery Order and the
12/11/14 Discovery Order are HEREBY SET ASIDE.

2

The 10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order is also available at
2015 WL 419654, and the 12/11/14 Discovery Appeals Order is also
available at 2015 WL 1778364.
3

The other defendants have been dismissed pursuant to the
parties’ stipulation. [Stipulation of Partial Dismissal Without
Prejudice of Individually Named Defendants, filed 3/11/15 (dkt.
no. 539).]
3

In short, the Court CONCLUDES Hawai`i law precludes
production of the de-identified information sought in this case
because the proposed de-identified information could be used to
identify patients.
BACKGROUND
The background of this case is well known to the
parties and the Court.

It is set forth in, inter alia, this

Court’s: September 18, 2014 Amended Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order or in the Alternative for Preliminary Injunction (“9/18/14
TRO Order”); [dkt. no. 343;4] the 10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order;
and the 12/11/14 Discovery Appeals Order.

This Court will

therefore only discuss the background that is relevant to the
effect of the Response Opinion on the remaining issues in the
discovery appeals.
I.

10/7/14 Discovery Appeal
In the 10/7/14 Discovery Order, the magistrate judge

inter alia, found that the List Patients’ medical records (“the
List Patients’ Records”) will be discoverable if they are deidentified.5

4

He ordered the parties to de-identify the List

The 9/18/14 TRO Order is also available at 47 F. Supp. 3d

1069.
5

“The List” and “the List Patients” are defined in the
10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order. 2015 WL 419654, at *1 & n.5.
The Patient Intervenors are all among the List Patients.
4

Patients’ Records and to produce the de-identified records.
[10/7/14 Discovery Order at 5.]

In the 10/7/14 Discovery Appeal,

Plaintiffs argued that these rulings were erroneous.

This Court

affirmed the magistrate judge’s finding that the List Patients’
Records are relevant.
419654, at *4.

10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order, 2015 WL

This Court also “affirm[ed] the 10/7/14 Discovery

Order, to the extent that it concluded that the List Patients’
de-identified medical records are discoverable under [the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”),
42 U.S.C. § 1320d, et seq.,] and corresponding state law.”

Id.

at *8.
Because of the lack of Hawai`i caselaw applicable to
the facts of this case, this Court could not determine “whether,
under the circumstances of this case, the List Patients’ right to
privacy under article I, section 6 of the Hawai`i State
Constitution trumps Defendants’ need for the List Patients’
Records, even after de-identification.”

Id. at *11.

This Court

therefore reserved ruling – pending the Hawai`i Supreme Court’s
response to the certified questions – on the ultimate issue of
whether the magistrate judge erred in ordering the production of
the List Patients’ Records after de-identification.

5

II.

12/11/14 Discovery Appeals
The following Requests for Production of Documents and

Things remain in dispute after the 12/11/14 Discovery Appeals
Order:
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.
11. All documents relating to the transfer
of any patient from QMC to The Cancer Center of
Hawai`i.
[Defs.’ Motion to Compel Discovery, filed 7/28/14 (dkt. no. 256),
Decl. of Claire Wong Black (“Black Motion to Compel Decl.”),
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.]
The following Request for Answers to Interrogatories
also remains in dispute: “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.”

[Black Motion to Compel Decl., Exh 15 (Defendant The

Queen’s Medical Center’s First Request for Answers to

6

Interrogatories to Plaintiff Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC,
dated 9/26/13) at 8-9.]

Queen’s proposed the same

interrogatories to PRO Associates.6

[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.]

The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiffs – and, where

necessary, TCCH – to respond to these discovery requests.

In the

12/11/14 Discovery Appeals, Plaintiffs and TCCH argue that the
magistrate judge erred in ordering them to respond to these
discovery requests.

This Court reserved ruling on these aspects

of the 12/11/14 Discovery Appeals, pending the response to the
certified questions.
III. Response Opinion
The Hawai`i Supreme Court reformulated the certified
questions as follows:
1.
May a 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.
Is a de-identification process sufficient to
protect the patient’s privacy interests where the
party already allowed its agents access to the
patient’s records and its agents inadvertently
made part of the patient’s medical information
public?

6

Insofar as interrogatory number 3 is identical for both
the discovery request served on PRO and the request served on PRO
Associates, any reference in this Order to interrogatory number 3
refers to that interrogatory in both discovery requests.
7

Response Opinion, 138 Hawai`i at 16, 375 P.3d at 1254.

The

supreme court specified that “the term ‘party’ refers to the
parties to the litigation, not to the parties to the
physician-patient relationship[, . . .] the ‘parties’ in this
case are the plaintiffs and defendants, and the ‘third parties’
in this case are the patient intervenors.”

Id.

In responding to the first certified question, the
supreme court held:
The right to privacy is absolute where, as
here, the individuals seeking to protect patient
medical records, in discovery and beyond, are not
parties to the litigation, have not consented to
the use of their patient medical records in
relation to the present lawsuit, and no compelling
state interest has been shown. . . .
. . . .
. . . We hold that, pursuant to article I,
section 6 of the Hawai`i Constitution, and under
the facts of this case, the parties cannot use, or
be compelled to produce, confidential patient
medical records in litigation where the patient is
not a party, where no compelling state interest
has been shown.
Id. at 20, 375 P.3d at 1258 (emphasis added).

As to the second

certified question, the supreme court held:
Just as article I, section 6 protects parties from
the use and production of their de-identified
information outside of litigation, we conclude
that article I, section 6 protects individuals
from the use and production of their de-identified
information in litigation to which they are not
parties. Thus, the use and production of even
sufficiently de-identified medical records, under
the circumstances of this case, will not
8

adequately protect the patients from an invasion
of their privacy.
Id. at 21, 375 P.3d at 1259 (emphasis added).

Putting its

holding another way, the supreme court stated:
Extending Cohan [v. Ayabe, 132 Hawai`i 408, 322
P.3d 948 (2014),7] to cases in which parties seek
to use and produce the medical records of
non-parties, we hold that to allow an individual’s
medical information, even if de-identified, to be
used in litigation to which that individual is not
a party, would reach beyond what the Hawai`i
Constitution permits in the absence of a showing
of a compelling state interest. In this case, QMC

7

In the Response Opinion, the Hawai`i Supreme Court stated:
In Cohan, we held, “To allow [a party’s medical]
information to be used outside the litigation,
regardless of whether it is de-identified or not,
would reach beyond what the Hawai`i Constitution
permits in the absence of a showing of a
compelling state interest.” 132 Hawai`i at 419,
322 P.3d at 959. In Cohan, we noted that the deidentification process under HIPAA is “extremely
complex and problematic,” and that, “[a]part from
these technical considerations, there is the very
complicated issue as to whether a patient has a
legitimate basis for being concerned about what
happens to their personal health information once
it is de-identified.” 132 Hawai`i at 417, 418,
322 P.3d at 957, 958 (footnote omitted). We
quoted the following observation from the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals with approval: “Even if
there were no possibility that a patient’s
identity might be learned from a redacted medical
record, there would still be an invasion of
privacy.” Cohan, 132 Hawai`i at 418, 322 P.3d at
958 (citing Nw. Mem’l Hosp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d
923, 929 (7th Cir. 2004)). . . .

138 Hawai`i at, 21, 375 P.3d at 1259 (some alterations in the
Response Opinion).

9

has made no such showing, and we do not believe
that a compelling state interest exists in
infringing upon the Hawai`i state constitutional
privacy rights of over 100 cancer patients in
order to resolve what is essentially a contract
dispute between competing cancer treatment
providers.
Id. at 22, 375 P.3d at 1260 (emphasis added).
This Court must now rule on the outstanding issues in
the 10/7/14 Discovery Appeal and the 12/11/14 Discovery Appeals,
in light of the guidance that the Hawai`i Supreme Court provided
in the Response Opinion.
DISCUSSION
I.

Violation of Article I, Section 6
Based on the Hawai`i Supreme Court’s responses to the

certified questions, this Court CONCLUDES that discovery of the
List Patients’ Records – even after de-identification – would
violate article I, section 6 of the Hawai`i State Constitution.
To the extent that the 10/7/14 Discovery Order and the 12/7/14
Discovery Order concluded otherwise, the orders are HEREBY SET
ASIDE because they are contrary to law.

See 10/7/14 Discovery

Appeal Order, 2015 WL 419654, at *3 (describing the standard
applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge’s pretrial order).
II.

Whether HIPAA Preempts Article I, Section 6
This Court must next determine whether HIPAA preempts

the protections of article I, section 6 in the instant case.
HIPAA regulations state, in pertinent part:
10

The

A standard, requirement, or implementation
specification adopted under this subchapter that
is contrary to a provision of State law preempts
the provision of State law. This general rule
applies, except if one or more of the following
conditions is met:
. . . .
(b) The provision of State law relates to
the privacy of individually identifiable health
information and is more stringent than a standard,
requirement, or implementation specification
adopted under subpart E of part 164 of this
subchapter.
45 C.F.R. § 160.203(b).
“Article 1, section 6 . . . provides more stringent
protection over patient medical records than does HIPAA.”
Response Opinion, 138 Hawai`i at 19, 375 P.3d at 1257 (footnotes
omitted).

However, this Court has recognized that “HIPAA allows

‘more stringent’ state law to preempt federal law only when it
relates to the privacy of ‘individually identifiable health
information.’”

9/18/14 TRO Order, 47 F. Supp. 3d at 1083

(quoting 45 C.F.R. § 160.203(b)).

In the 9/18/14 TRO Order and

in the 10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order, this Court noted that the
Hawai`i Supreme Court has stated that, because de-identified
health information is not protected under HIPAA and because more
stringent state laws are only exempt from HIPAA preemption as to
“individually identifiable health information,” “‘state law also
does not protect de-identified information.’”

Id. (quoting Cohan

v. Ayabe, 132 Hawai`i 408, 417, 322 P.3d 948, 957 (2014) (quoting

11

Nw. Mem’l Hosp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 926 (7th Cir.
2004))).8
This statement in Cohan appears to indicate that the
Hawai`i Supreme Court has already recognized that article I,
section 6’s protection of de-identified health information is
preempted by HIPAA.

However, the Response Opinion makes clear

that this would be a misreading of Cohan, and that the case did
not hold that article I, section 6 is ineffective as to deidentified health information.

The supreme court stated:

We consider the last statement [– that state law
does not protect de-identified information –] to
be an accurate summary of the holding in Nw. Mem’l
Hosp., which was, more specifically, that
Illinois’ medical-records privilege, while
providing “more stringent” state law protection of
“individually identifiable health information,”
was no barrier to the discovery of de-identified
health information. See also Zyprexa Prods. Liab.
Litig., 254 F.R.D. 50, 52 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)
(similarly concluding, “the States’ [physicianpatient] privilege laws pose no obstacle to the
discovery of [patient] medical records, provided
those records are de-identified.”).
By contrast, our express holding in Cohan
was, “To allow [a party’s medical] information to
be used outside the litigation, regardless of
whether it is de-identified or not, would reach
beyond what the Hawai`i Constitution permits in
the absence of a showing of a compelling state
interest.” 132 Hawai`i at 419, 322 P.3d at
959. . . .
Response Opinion, 138 Hawai`i at 21–22, 375 P.3d at 1259–60 (some

8

Order.

The 10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order quoted the 9/18/14 TRO
2015 WL 419654, at *2.
12

alterations in the Response Opinion).

The concurring opinion

also points out that the preemption issue is still an open
question.

Id. at 22, 375 P.3d at 1260 (Recktenwald, C.J.,

concurring).
As noted supra, HIPAA does not preempt more stringent
state laws as to “individually identifiable health information.”
For purposes of the HIPAA regulations,
Individually identifiable health information is
information that is a subset of health
information, including demographic information
collected from an individual, and:
(1) Is created or received by a health care
provider, health plan, employer, or health
care clearinghouse; and
(2) Relates to the past, present, or future
physical or mental health or condition of an
individual; the provision of health care to
an individual; or the past, present, or
future payment for the provision of health
care to an individual; and
(i)

That identifies the individual; or

(ii) With respect to which there is a
reasonable basis to believe the
information can be used to identify the
individual.
45 C.F.R. § 160.103.

In light of the HIPAA regulations’ emphasis

on the individual as opposed to health information in general,
the issue before this Court in the remaining portions of the
discovery appeals is not whether HIPAA preempts article I,
section 6’s protection of all de-identified health information.
The issue is whether HIPAA preempts article I, section 6’s
13

protection of the specific health information that Defendants
seek from the List Patients’ Records.
This Court previously found that it was still possible
to de-identify the List Patients’ Records, in spite of the prior
disclosure and use of the List Patients’ history and physicals.
10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order, 2015 WL 419654, at *6-8.
However, in light of the Response Opinion and the parties’
supplemental memoranda discussing the opinion, and after further
consideration of the applicable legal authority, this Court
concludes that it is appropriate to reconsider that finding.

Cf.

United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2004)
(holding that a district court may sua sponte reconsider a prior
interlocutory ruling over which it still has jurisdiction).
In the 10/7/14 Discovery Appeal Order, this Court
concluded that the List Patients’ Records are arguably relevant
to Defendants’ defenses and to the remaining portion of
Counterclaim Count II because
Defendants contend that they were justified in
terminating the PRO Physicians’ privileges because
of concerns that the PRO Physicians were
improperly diverting patients they saw at Queen’s
to TCCH facilities. The . . . remaining portion
of Counterclaim Count II . . . alleges that the
PRO Member Physicians’ self-referral practices
were an unfair method of competition (“UMOC”), in
violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480–2. The List
Patients’ Records will establish what procedures
the patients could have received at Queen’s, but
for the allegedly deceptive referrals.
2015 WL 419654, at *4.

Defendants state that:
14

The de-identified information needed consists only
of the following:
•

Type (or location) of cancer;

•
Type of treatment(s) (e.g., prone
breast) and age and model of equipment used
in treatment;
•
Timing and form of disclosure of the
Plaintiffs’ economic interests;
•
Patient’s residential zip code and place
of treatment (Liliha or Leeward);
•
Insured status (public, private or
none).
[Defs.’ Suppl. Mem. at 7.]
It is clear that the proposed de-identified information
would: 1) be health information about the List Patients that
Queen’s – a health care provider – either created or received;
2) relate to the List Patients’ past, present, or future health
conditions; 3) relate to the provision of health care to the List
Patients; and 4) relate to the payment for that health care.
However, it is also clear that the List Patients’ Records can be
redacted so that they do not identify the patients directly, such
as by name or identifying numbers.

The closer question is

whether the List Patients’ Records can be redacted such that
there is no “reasonable basis to believe the information can be
used to identify” them.
45 C.F.R. § 164.514(b)(2)(i) “sets forth specific
identifiers which, if removed, ‘de-identify,’ the health

15

records.”

Nw. Mem’l Hosp., 362 F.3d at 934.

“Once these

identifiers are redacted, the medical records are no longer
‘individually identifiable health information.’”
C.F.R. § 164.514(a)).

Id. (quoting 45

First, Defendants’ description of their

proposed de-identified information does not comply with
§ 164.514(b).

For example, § 164.514(b)(2) states, in pertinent

part:
A covered entity may determine that health
information is not individually identifiable
health information only if:
. . . .
(2)(i)
The following identifiers of the
individual or of relatives, employers, or
household members of the individual, are removed:
. . . .
(B) All geographic subdivisions smaller
than a State, including street address, city,
county, precinct, zip code, and their
equivalent geocodes, except for the initial
three digits of a zip code if, according to
the current publicly available data from the
Bureau of the Census:
(1) The geographic unit formed by
combining all zip codes with the
same three initial digits contains
more than 20,000 people; and
(2) The initial three digits of a
zip code for all such geographic
units containing 20,000 or fewer
people is changed to 000.
In contrast, Defendants seek the List Patients’ residential zip
codes.

In addition to the failure to comply with § 164.514(b),

16

this Court has carefully considered all of the relevant legal
authority, the facts of this case, and all of the specific
information in Defendants’ de-identification proposal.

This

Court FINDS that, in light of the prior disclosure and use of the
List Patients’ health information, “there is a reasonable basis
to believe” that Defendants’ proposed de-identified information
could be used to identify the List Patients.
This Court therefore CONCLUDES that, even after
Defendants’ proposed de-identification, the remaining information
from the List Patients’ Records still constitutes “individually
identifiable health information” for purposes of the HIPAA
regulations.

Because this Court has concluded the information at

issue is individually identifiable health information, this Court
also CONCLUDES that Hawaii’s “more stringent” privacy standards
under article I, section 6 of the Hawai`i State Constitution
apply instead of HIPAA.

See § 160.203(b).

III. Decision
In light of the foregoing conclusions, this Court
CONCLUDES that the 10/7/14 Discovery Order is contrary to law, to
the extent that the magistrate judge ordered the parties to deidentify the List Patients’ Records and to produce the deidentified records.

This Court HEREBY SETS ASIDE that portion of

the 10/7/14 Discovery Order.

17

Further, this Court CONCLUDES that the 12/11/14
Discovery Order is contrary to law, to the extent that the
magistrate judge: ordered Plaintiffs and TCCH to respond to
Requests for Production of Documents and Things numbers 9, 10,
and 11; and ordered PRO LLC and PRO Associates to respond to
Request for Answers to Interrogatories number 3.

This Court

HEREBY SETS ASIDE those portions of the 12/11/14 Discovery Order.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court HEREBY GRANTS
the remaining portions of: Plaintiffs’ Appeal from Magistrate
Judge’s Order Regarding Discovery Issues [Dkt. 363], filed
October 17, 2014; Plaintiffs’ Appeal from Magistrate Judge’s
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt 449],
filed December 22, 2014; and TCCH’s Appeal from Magistrate
Judge’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery
[Dkt 449], filed December 24, 2014.

The portions of the

magistrate judge’s October 7, 2014 order and December 11, 2014
order that remained after this Court’s January 30, 2015 order and
April 20, 2015 order on the discovery appeals are HEREBY SET
ASIDE, as more specifically set forth supra Discussion
Section III.
//
//
//
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, November 23, 2016.

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

PACIFIC RADIATION ONCOLOGY, LLC, ET AL. V. THE QUEEN’S MEDICAL
CENTER, ET AL.; CIVIL NO. 12-00064 LEK-KSC; ORDER RULING ON
REMAINING ISSUES IN PENDING APPEALS FROM THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDERS

19