Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-02865
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Judge Chen granted a conference-continuance motion while allowing already-issued third-party discovery to proceed.
The order directly affected the plaintiffs, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., and the third parties served with subpoenas: Adobe, Alphabet, Microsoft, and X.
What happened
In Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., the plaintiffs were preparing to file an amended complaint shortly before the initial case management conference. Kaiser asked to move the conference.
The court granted Kaiser’s request and continued the conference to October 17, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. It also allowed the plaintiffs to continue discovery they had already started through subpoenas to Adobe, Alphabet, Microsoft, and X.
Judge Edward Chen found good cause for the early discovery because of the nature of the plaintiffs’ privacy claims and found no real prejudice to Kaiser. The order did not prevent Kaiser or the third parties from raising other objections to the subpoenas.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-02865
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 23, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs were expected to file an amended complaint days before the scheduled initial case management conference. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. moved to continue that conference. The plaintiffs had also already issued third-party subpoenas to Adobe, Alphabet, Microsoft, and X.
Rulings
The court granted Kaiser’s administrative motion to continue the initial case management conference. The conference was continued to October 17, 2023, at 2:30 p.m.
The court also allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the third-party discovery they had already served. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) ordinarily requires the parties to confer before discovery begins, but the court noted a dispute about whether that conference had already occurred, in whole or in part. The court further explained that early discovery may be allowed for good cause when the need for expedited discovery, considering the administration of justice, outweighs possible prejudice to the responding party.
Reasoning and effect
The court found good cause because of the nature of the plaintiffs’ privacy claims. It also found no real prejudice to Kaiser because the basic substance of the plaintiffs’ case would likely remain the same despite the amended pleading. The ruling did not prevent Kaiser or the third parties from objecting to the subpoenas on other grounds. The order disposed of Docket No. 35.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.