Snibbe v. Superior Court
224 Cal. App. 4th 184
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Snibbe petitions for a writ of mandate to compel vacating a discovery order requiring production of 160 postoperative orders; argues irrelevance, physician-patient privilege, privacy, and undue burden.
- The underlying suit alleges wrongful death from Mrs. Gilbert’s hip replacement; defendant is Cedars and Snibbe; hydromorphone in postoperative orders is implicated.
- Postoperative orders included a blank for opioid doses with handwritten max 2 mg hydromorphone every two hours for severe pain; patient died after a two milligram dose administered IV.
- Real parties sought all postoperative orders signed by petitioner and his assistant related to opioids; court limited discovery to opioid provisions with redactions, later requiring full orders on inquiry for clarification.
- This court issued an alternative writ directing the trial court to limit production to pain-management provisions and redact personal identifiers; stayed the discovery order.
- Court grants in part, limiting to pain-management provisions of 160 orders and redacting identifying information; otherwise denies petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the discovery of entire postoperative orders relevant? | Snibbe argues only opioid provisions are relevant; broader orders are irrelevant. | Real parties contend broader provisions show custom/practice affecting care decisions. | Discovery limited to opioid provisions; broader orders not required. |
| Does physician-patient privilege bar disclosure of redacted orders? | Privilege protects confidential communications; orders may fall within privilege. | Orders from physician’s agent may still be privileged; redaction preserves privilege. | Limited redacted production of pain-management provisions does not violate privilege. |
| Does patient privacy trump discovery of redacted orders? | Patients have privacy rights; any disclosure risks identifying information. | Redacted orders minimize identifiability; privacy balanced against discovery need. | Redacted opioid-provision orders do not seriously invade privacy; discovery allowed with redactions. |
| Was the discovery burden unduly onerous? | Reviewing hundreds of charts is burdensome; limited scope needed. | Court already limited scope; burden argument is improper if misapplied. | Abuse-of-discretion review supports the limited discovery as reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Ryan, 163 Cal.App.4th 916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (habit evidence admissible to prove conduct on specific occasion)
- Binder v. Superior Court, 196 Cal.App.3d 893 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (privacy concerns; deidentification; limits on disclosure of medical records)
- Rudnick v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 924 (Cal. 1974) (disclosure of adverse drug reports with patient identity protected)
- Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court, 194 Cal.App.4th 288 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (privacy balancing; deidentification; privacy rights in medical records)