Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., 2:22-cv-00972

Background

Plaintiff Michele Brown alleges she developed paradoxical adipose hyperplasia (PAH) after a July 2019 CoolSculpting neck treatment and underwent surgical removal; she sued Zeltiq Aesthetics and the treatment provider (Orange Twist LLC) on negligence, fraud, and strict products liability theories.
Defendant Zeltiq moved to compel signed authorizations to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records from Dr. Andres Resto, Sierra Health & Life Services (her insurer), and Walgreens Pharmacy; some authorizations were resolved but these three remained disputed.
Zeltiq argues the records are relevant and proportional because Brown put her physical, mental, and emotional health at issue and the records may show alternative causes, aggravating factors, referrals, or other treatments (including possible cancer-related care).
Brown contends the records are irrelevant or disproportionate (especially records older than five years), invokes privacy and collateral-source concerns, and says Dr. Resto retired and may no longer retain records.
The court applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 balancing (broad discovery but proportionality limits) and precedent holding medical records discoverable when a plaintiff’s health is at issue; privacy concerns are addressed via protective orders rather than blanket refusal.
Order: Brown must produce signed authorizations for Dr. Resto (or a certificate of nonexistence) and for Sierra Health & Life Services and Walgreens Pharmacy records, with insurer/pharmacy records limited to seven years prior to the CoolSculpting treatment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown must provide authorization for Dr. Andres Resto’s records	Dr. Resto retired in 2015 and no records exist; producing is pointless; records are irrelevant	Zeltiq is entitled to verify medical history and any referral/records; records may bear on causes/aggravating factors	Compelled: produce signed authorization or, if no records, a certificate of nonexistence from Dr. Resto
Whether Brown must authorize Sierra Health & Life Services (insurer) records	Insurance records are collateral-source/protected, irrelevant, and disproportionate	Insurer records may reveal other diagnoses, treatments, or causes and are relevant to defenses	Compelled: produce signed authorization for insurer records, limited to 7 years prior to treatment
Whether Brown must authorize Walgreens Pharmacy records	Pharmacy records are irrelevant and overly broad	Pharmacy records can show prescriptions/treatments relevant to causation or aggravation	Compelled: produce signed authorization for pharmacy records, limited to 7 years prior to treatment
Whether privacy/collateral-source doctrines bar disclosure	Constitutional privacy and collateral-source doctrine prevent forced production	Privacy can be protected by a protective order; collateral-source issues go to admissibility, not discoverability	Denied: privacy and collateral-source objections do not bar discovery; protective order and temporal limits address sensitivity

Key Cases Cited

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir.) (trial court has broad discretion to permit or deny discovery)
Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531 (9th Cir.) (analysis of government access to sensitive medical information and informational privacy)
Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab’y, 135 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir.) (government intrusion into private medical information and privacy interests)
Proctor v. Castelletti, 911 P.2d 853 (Nev. 1996) (collateral source rule as to admissibility of evidence in Nevada)
Schlatter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 561 P.2d 1342 (Nev. 1977) (limits and judicial oversight on broad medical discovery)