Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-02865
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In John Does 1-5 v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Judge Kang ordered narrower discovery, limited data production, and further discussions between the parties.
The plaintiffs and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., along with the other parties identified in the caption, are affected. The order specifically imposes data-production requirements on named plaintiffs and directs Kaiser to make a supplemental production if the parties determine that responsive documents were improperly withheld.
What happened
In John Does 1-5, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al., the parties disputed whether Kaiser had improperly withheld documents and whether the plaintiffs had adequately answered several document requests. The dispute arose during a conference about managing discovery.
The court ordered the parties to discuss whether Kaiser had improperly withheld responsive documents and required Kaiser to promptly produce any documents they determined were improperly withheld. It also ordered the parties to narrow requests for information from wellness applications and websites to materials related to the plaintiffs’ health or medical care, and to discuss another issue concerning website terms.
Judge Peter H. Kang denied requests for the plaintiffs’ entire browsing and Internet-protocol-address histories, but ordered named plaintiffs who used Facebook to produce Facebook user-agent data and those who did not use Facebook to produce Twitter user-agent data. The order resolved the discovery dispute docketed as Dkt. 272.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-02865
- Edward Chen
- Jan. 21, 2025
Background
The court issued Discovery Management Order No. 3 after a December 17, 2024 discovery-management conference. The court explained that it has broad discretion to manage discovery and determine whether requested information is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
Kaiser’s document review
Three negotiated search terms apparently identified 2,415 new documents. Kaiser produced 22 documents after reviewing them for relevance. The plaintiffs argued that the small production showed Kaiser had applied an overly restrictive relevance review. Kaiser responded that it had reviewed the documents diligently and performed multiple quality checks, and that the broad search terms had produced many irrelevant materials.
The court did not order immediate production of all remaining documents. Instead, it ordered the parties to meet and confer. If they determine that Kaiser improperly withheld responsive documents, Kaiser must promptly make a supplemental production.
Requests for information about wellness applications and websites
Kaiser’s Requests for Production Nos. 11-12 sought information about personal or health information the plaintiffs disclosed to 14 third-party wellness-related applications and websites since January 2019. The plaintiffs argued that examples such as workout reminders, exercise attendance records, and performance tracking were irrelevant, invasive, and burdensome. Kaiser argued that the information could test the plaintiffs’ claims that data transmitted through Kaiser’s websites and applications was sensitive and confidential.
The court found that information such as workout reminders and exercise-class attendance records was only minimally related to health care and was largely irrelevant. It ordered the parties to meet and confer to narrow the requests to materials related to the plaintiffs’ health or medical care. The court also found the requests insufficiently relevant and disproportionate to the extent Kaiser sought personal health data voluntarily disclosed to third-party health-care providers to compare with the alleged unauthorized disclosures at issue. The parties were ordered to promptly discuss whether website terms and the discovery requests authorized disclosure of personal health information to additional parties.
Requests for privacy and browsing information
Requests for Production Nos. 23-30 sought information about privacy protections the plaintiffs used since January 2019, including browser settings, plug-ins, privacy applications, and device-security features. The plaintiffs had agreed to produce some Google and Apple data. Kaiser also sought Facebook files containing user-agent strings and Internet-protocol addresses, Google bookmark and browsing-history files, and similar data from Twitter and Microsoft.
The court denied the requests to the extent they sought the named plaintiffs’ entire browsing histories or Internet-protocol-address histories for the relevant period, finding those requests disproportionate and likely to include large amounts of irrelevant material. The court ordered named plaintiffs who used Facebook during the relevant period to produce their Facebook user-agent-string data. Named plaintiffs who did not use Facebook during that period were ordered to produce their Twitter user-agent-string data.
Disposition
The order resolved Dkt. 272. It ordered further discussions between the parties, denied the overbroad browsing-history and Internet-protocol-address-history requests, and imposed the specified limited data-production requirements. It was a discovery-management ruling, not a decision on the ultimate merits of the lawsuit.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.