Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-06133
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, Magistrate Judge Tse denied discovery letters without prejudice and sealed medical records while jurisdiction remained unresolved.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected by the delay and procedural requirements for discovery. Plaintiff Maya Zubkovskaya was directly affected by the sealing of filings containing her medical information.
What happened
Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine involved four discovery letter briefs and an unresolved question about whether the court had authority to hear the case. The complaint did not identify the citizenship of every member of the limited liability company defendant, and the plaintiffs were ordered to amend it to provide those facts.
The court decided that the jurisdiction question should be resolved before addressing discovery. It denied the pending discovery letters without prejudice, allowing them to be renewed after a properly amended complaint. The court also directed the Clerk to seal several filings containing private medical information about plaintiff Maya Zubkovskaya.
Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse issued the order on April 15, 2022. The court instructed the parties that any future discovery disputes must be submitted in a joint letter, and that unilateral discovery letters would be rejected.
The detailed version
- Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC · No. 3:21-cv-06133
- Maxine Chesney
- Apr. 15, 2022
Background
Four unilateral discovery letter briefs were pending. The court also noted an unresolved subject-matter-jurisdiction issue, meaning uncertainty about whether the federal court had legal authority to hear the case. The complaint did not allege the citizenship of each member of the limited liability company defendant. Judge Maxine Chesney had ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint setting out the facts needed to establish complete diversity of citizenship.
The magistrate judge asked the parties whether the discovery disputes should be addressed after the amended complaint. After reviewing the parties’ responses, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that jurisdiction was the paramount issue and should be resolved before discovery rulings.
Discovery ruling
The court denied the pending discovery dispute letters without prejudice to renewal after the plaintiffs submitted an amended pleading properly alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction. The parties were instructed that any renewed or future discovery disputes must be raised in a joint letter complying with the court’s civil standing order. The order states that unilateral discovery letters will be rejected.
Sealing ruling
The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had publicly disclosed unrelated confidential medical information in court filings, including the entire Exhibit C to two discovery letters. The court agreed that the public filing of Exhibit C, which contained 26 pages of intensely private and confidential information about plaintiff Maya Zubkovskaya’s medical history, and the defendants’ references to that information were inappropriate.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to seal Docket Nos. 53, 53-3, and 57-3 in their entirety. The order relied on the need to protect confidential medical information despite the general presumption that court records are publicly accessible.
Disposition
The four pending discovery letters were denied without prejudice. Docket Nos. 53, 53-3, and 57-3 were ordered sealed. The order did not decide the underlying claims or finally resolve whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.