Center v. Superior Court
194 Cal. App. 4th 288
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Center sued to enjoin opt-out class notice for patients incorrectly given Bicillin C-R instead of Bicillin L-A; privacy and physician-patient privilege defenses were raised; trial court ordered opt-out notice with list of names and addresses to class counsel; HIPAA and CMIA considerations were invoked in discovery disputes; remand proceedings led to an opt-out certification and protective orders; class notice proposed to be administered with a third-party administrator; on remand, court approved opt-out notice but allowed disclosure of names to plaintiffs' counsel; petition sought to void disclosure of names and ensure privacy protections, with a corrective protective order to limit disclosure; court must assess opt-out vs opt-in under California law and privacy privileges; Hypertouch and related cases shape opt-in prohibitions for class actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opt-out is proper under California class action law. | Bomersheim argues opt-out aligns with Rule 3.766 and 3.766(d) to bind absent members. | Center argues opt-in is required to protect privacy and physician-patient privilege. | Opt-out proper; opt-in not required. |
| Whether disclosing class members’ names to plaintiffs violates privacy or physician-patient privilege. | Plaintiffs contend disclosure is needed for discovery; privilege protects names. | Disclosure to plaintiffs’ counsel risks waiving privilege and privacy. | disclosure of names to named plaintiffs violates privacy; require third-party administrator. |
| Whether a third-party administrator is necessary to protect privacy in notice. | Administrator unnecessary; notices can be sent by Center. | Administrator ensures neutral handling and avoids unauthorized disclosure. | Notice must be given through a court-appointed administrator. |
| Whether the physician-patient privilege is waived by class action participation. | Privilege should not be waived simply by opt-out participation. | Putting medical condition at issue could waive privilege. | Merely joining the class opt-out does not waive privilege. |
| Whether the protective order adequately protects privacy in public filings. | Protective order is insufficient to prevent disclosure in public filings. | Protective order limits disclosure and allows redacted or numeric identifiers. | Protective order must strictly limit public disclosure and use of identifiers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hypertouch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal.App.4th 1527 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (opt-in class action not sanctioned; conflicts with CA rules governing notices)
- Haro v. City of Rosemead, 174 Cal.App.4th 1067 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (FLSA class action opt-in not allowed; Rule 382 framework; opt-in conflicts with class action goals)
- Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360 (Cal. 2007) (privacy balancing; opt-out letters acceptable; limited invasion of privacy)
- Pollock v. Superior Court, 93 Cal.App.4th 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) ( physician-patient privilege waiver when claimants consent or are petitioners; context of disclosures)
- Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1982) (colonial life opt-out-like disclosure allowed with consent; context for notice)
- Rudnick v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 924 (Cal. 1974) (physician-patient privilege; disclosure under certain circumstances)
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (privacy framework and balancing test for privacy issues)