Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perinatal Medical Group Inc., Et v. Regional Medical Center's Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum

May 11, 2011

PERINATAL MEDICAL GROUP INC., ET
AL.,
v.
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER'S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff, Defendant Children's Hospital of Central California's Motion to Compel Community

I. INTRODUCTION

(ECF No. 75)

On April 26, 2011, Defendant Children's Hospital of Central California filed a motion seeking to compel compliance with a subpoena served on non-party Community Regional Medical Center. (ECF Nos. 75-78.) Community filed its Opposition to the Motion to Compel on May 5, 2011. (ECF Nos. 79-81.) On May 6, 2011, Children's and Community filed a Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute. (ECF No. 83.) Children's filed a reply to the opposition on May 9, 2011. (ECF No. 84.)

The Court considered Defendants' motion on the record without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The Court carefully reviewed and considered all papers filed by the parties, including all arguments, points, authorities, declarations, and objections.*fn1

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs formerly provided neonatal intensive care services for Children's, Community, and other hospitals in the Central Valley of California. However, in February 2009, Children's did not renew Plaintiffs' contract for the provision of such services. Instead, Children's contracted for such services with another neonatal group. Plaintiffs continued providing neonatal intensive care services at Community.

Plaintiffs subsequently brought suit against Children's and related entities alleging, among other things, that Defendants had caused Plaintiffs financial loss and harmed competition in the market for neonatal intensive care services by excluding Plaintiffs from practicing neonatology at Children's. Defendants dispute these claims and assert, in essence, that Plaintiffs have not lost business but instead successfully diverted business from Children's to Community and thereby improved not only Community's competitive position but competition within the market for neonatology services generally.

The present dispute revolves around Children's attempts to discover information related to the volume of patients and overall revenue generated by Community's neonatal intensive care unit during periods at issue in the case. On November 3, 2010, Children's served on Community a subpoena requesting some twenty-nine categories of information relating to Plaintiffs' relationship with Community. After Community and Plaintiffs objected to the subpoena, the parties engaged in negotiations that resolved much of the dispute over which documents should be produced. The only remaining disagreement is with respect to the following categories:

Category No. 21: Any and all documents concerning the number of patients treated by Perinatal Medical Group in Community Regional Medical Center's neonatal intensive care unit from December 1, 2008 to the present date.

Category No. 25: Any and all documents relating to the patient count in Community Regional Medical Center's neonatal intensive care unit from December 1, 2008 to the present date.

Category No. 26: All documents that reflect the total revenue from Community Regional Medical Center's neonatal intensive care unit each month between December 1, 2008 to the present date.

Category No. 27: All documents that reflect the total number of patients at Community Regional Medical Center's neonatal intensive care unit who required the highest level of neonatal care Community Regional Medical Center could provide from December 1, 2008 to the present. (ECF No. 77 at 7-22.)

Community's objections and their opposition to this motion rest essentially on two grounds: relevancy and privacy. Children's has responded to the latter objection by agreeing to make Community a party to an existing protective order between Plaintiffs and Defendants, to bring documents produced by Community within the protection of the protective order, and to limit disclosure of such ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.