Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight v. North Memorial Health Care
Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Health
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-00440
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Kaliher v. North Memorial Health Care, Magistrate Judge Micko granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel discovery, ordering plaintiffs to produce health-related emails, browsing history, social media records, and device information.
Plaintiffs in internet-tracking health-privacy class actions who receive discovery demands from defendant health care providers; patients alleging hospital website pixel tracking; litigants in cases involving health data privacy and Meta pixel technology; attorneys handling discovery disputes over the scope of personal device, social media, and browsing history requests.
What happened
Kaliher v. North Memorial Health Care is a class-action privacy lawsuit in which patients Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight allege that North Memorial Health Care secretly used tracking software developed by Meta (commonly known as a 'pixel') on its websites to harvest patients' sensitive medical information and share it with third parties for targeted advertising. The case is currently in the discovery phase — the stage where each side can demand relevant documents and information from the other — and North Memorial filed a motion asking the court to force the plaintiffs to more fully answer interrogatories (written questions) and requests for document production.
North Memorial's original discovery requests were sweeping, seeking essentially all internet activity, every device, every wireless network, and contact information for household members and anyone who ever accessed the plaintiffs' accounts or devices. The court found these requests largely overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case. However, North Memorial had also filed a narrowed 'Proposed Order' alongside its motion, and at oral argument confirmed it was seeking relief consistent with those narrowed requests rather than the original sweeping versions.
Magistrate Judge Micko granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court ordered the plaintiffs to supplement their answers and produce documents — but only those tied to health-care related matters — covering email accounts and devices used for health purposes, social media posts and blogs referencing their health or status as North patients, internet browsing and search history related to health, emails about health or North Memorial, and any health-related applications downloaded. The court denied North Memorial's requests for the names, addresses, and phone numbers of household members and others with device access, information about all wireless networks used, and all-encompassing browser settings and plug-ins, finding those requests too attenuated and burdensome. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs and fees, and any additional discovery must be produced within 21 days.
The detailed version
- Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight v. North Memorial Health Care · No. 0:23-cv-00440
- Katherine Menendez
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight — current and former patients at North Memorial Health Care ('North') — filed this putative class action alleging that North secretly embedded tracking software created by Meta Platforms, Inc. (a 'pixel') in its public website and its password-protected patient portal. According to the Second Amended Complaint, this pixel collected sensitive health data (including conditions researched, appointments scheduled, and patient portal communications) and transmitted it to Meta, which then used the data to deliver targeted advertisements on plaintiffs' social media accounts. The operative complaint asserts five claims: violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; violations of the Minnesota Wiretap Act; violations of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; violations of the Minnesota Health Records Act; and unjust enrichment. An earlier motion to dismiss was granted as to two counts and denied as to five, leaving these five claims active.
The case entered the discovery phase, and North filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories (Doc. 122), contending that plaintiffs had unilaterally narrowed North's requests and responded only to what they deemed relevant, rather than the requests as actually written. The court held oral argument on October 10, 2025.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery of 'any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.' Courts construe relevance broadly, but the moving party bears the threshold burden of showing relevance; once shown, the resisting party must establish lack of relevancy or undue burden. Proportionality is assessed by weighing the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to information, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit. A party cannot be compelled to produce documents not in its possession, and a party's assertion of full production must be accepted at face value.
Threshold Issues
Mootness
Plaintiffs argued many requests were moot because they had already responded. The court rejected this argument, noting plaintiffs had unilaterally narrowed the requests and responded only to the narrowed versions — a practice the court expressly disallowed.
Overbreadth
The court found that North's requests as originally written were largely overbroad and sought disproportionate amounts of irrelevant information, including all internet activity, all devices, all wireless networks, and personal contact information for non-parties. However, because North filed a Proposed Order with narrowed versions of many requests, and confirmed at oral argument it was seeking relief under the narrowed versions, the court evaluated the narrowed formulations.
Meet and Confer
Plaintiffs argued North failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1's meet-and-confer requirement, particularly after supplemental productions. The court declined to require further meet-and-confer sessions, finding that the overlap between disputes and the approaching discovery deadline made a ruling on all requests the more practical outcome.
Temporal Scope
The parties agreed at oral argument that all discovery is limited to the period beginning February 22, 2017.
Rulings on Individual Discovery Requests
Interrogatory No. 3 — Email Accounts, Devices, and Media North sought identification of all email accounts, devices, and storage media used to send, receive, or view communications 'related to the allegations.' Plaintiffs responded only as to accounts and devices used to access North's website. The court found the full request overbroad and vague, but ordered plaintiffs to supplement their response to include email accounts, devices, and media used for health-care related matters, reasoning that North is entitled to explore what other sources may be collecting health information.
Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production No. 15 — Health Data Disclosure Interrogatory No. 10 asked plaintiffs to identify all facts supporting specific paragraph 9 allegations about compromised health data. Request for Production No. 15 sought corresponding documents. As written, both were overbroad, but North's narrowed Proposed Order limited them to emails sent or received relating to health status, North Memorial, or health-care related issues. The court granted the motion as to these requests in the narrowed form.
Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production No. 10 — Social Media Interrogatory No. 6 sought identification of all social media accounts ever held. Request for Production No. 10 sought all content on those accounts related to the defendant or plaintiffs' health. As written, overbroad. Under North's narrowed formulation, plaintiffs must: identify all social media accounts and usernames; produce posts, comments, likes, group memberships, and check-ins referencing their physical or mental health, patient status at North, or any other health-care issues; and identify and produce all blogs and blog posts related to the same. The court found this information highly relevant — both to liability (whether health data was disclosed through other channels) and damages (whether extensive public posting about health diminishes a reasonable expectation of privacy in that data). Motion granted in the narrowed form.
Interrogatory Nos. 13–16 — Household Members, Device Access, and Wireless Networks These interrogatories sought: names, addresses, and phone numbers of all household members with internet-connected devices (No. 13); names, addresses, and phone numbers of all persons with access to plaintiffs' accounts and devices (No. 14); names, addresses, and phone numbers of all persons who connected to plaintiffs' IP address or home wireless network (No. 15); and identification by name and address of all locations where plaintiffs connected to a shared wireless network more than once (No. 16). The court denied each. While acknowledging marginal relevance, the court found it far outweighed by the breadth and burden involved. Plaintiffs had already attested that no household members accessed North's website. Seeking contact details for everyone who ever used plaintiffs' wireless network or devices was characterized as 'fishing.' The explanation that 'connecting to a wireless network can result in the collection of data which can relate to targeted advertising' was found too attenuated to justify eight years of network history.
Interrogatory No. 17 — Downloaded Applications North sought identification of every application ever downloaded on plaintiffs' smartphones, watches, or tablets. The court found this overbroad, but ordered plaintiffs to identify any application downloaded for health-care related matters — including health apps (e.g., MyChart), navigation apps used to locate health providers, and forum apps (e.g., Reddit) used to research health information.
Request for Production Nos. 11–12 — Browsing and Search History Request for Production No. 11 sought all browsing history across all devices and browsers. Request for Production No. 12 sought all internet search history retained in any format. As written, both were found 'exceedingly overbroad and intrusive,' noting general judicial reluctance to compel forensic examination of personal devices. However, under North's narrowed Proposed Order, plaintiffs must produce browsing history (No. 11) and search history (No. 12) relating to their physical or mental health status, patient status at North, or any other health-care related issues. Motion granted in the narrowed form.
Request for Production No. 13 — Browser Settings, Plug-Ins, and Extensions North sought documents sufficient to identify all settings, plug-ins, add-ons, and extensions that may have affected plaintiffs' interaction with any website, as well as data shared or saved in connection with those interactions. The court found the request uniquely ambiguous ('any other thing that may have affected Plaintiff's experience'). It also found that North's Proposed Order revisions were defective because they sought orders that 'Plaintiff shall state' certain information — which is an interrogatory function, not a document request function. Because North offered no cogent narrowed formulation for a proper document request, the motion was denied as to Request for Production No. 13.
Disposition
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Supplemental productions ordered must be provided within 21 days of the October 15, 2025 Order. Each party bears its own costs and fees related to the motion.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.