Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc.

Background

The court considered the parties’ fifth joint discovery-dispute letter. The disputes concerned (1) the length and scope of Lin’s second deposition and (2) photographs that were part of complaint files involving other people who had complained about Solta’s machine.

Lin had already been deposed for 7.5 hours. Solta requested four additional hours. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) generally limits a deposition to one day of seven hours unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise. The court explained that an extension requires good cause and may be appropriate when an interpreter or another person has impeded or delayed the examination. The court concluded that the use of a translator, together with the circumstances of the earlier deposition, established good cause for four additional hours. Solta could question Lin during that time on any relevant topic.

Photographs and Privacy Protections

During discovery, Lin had requested Solta’s internal files concerning other people who complained about Solta’s machine. The court had ordered production of those files, subject to redaction of nonparty patients’ personally identifying information. Solta produced the complaint files but did not produce photographs that were part of those files or notify Lin that the photographs had been withheld. Lin learned about the photographs during depositions.

The court rejected Solta’s argument that the request was untimely, finding that the request was timely and that Solta had failed to produce responsive materials. The court also rejected Solta’s argument that the photographs could not be produced because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

The court found that the parties’ stipulated protective order satisfied the relevant federal requirements because it limited use and disclosure of the protected health information to the litigation and required return or destruction of the information at the end of the case. The court also found that California law permits disclosure under circumstances including a court order, subpoena, or discovery authorization. Because the photographs were relevant to comparing injuries, Solta was required to produce the requested photographs of third-party persons in its complaint files, subject to the protective order’s confidential designation.

Warning and Effect of the Order

The court strongly admonished Lin and her counsel to comply with the protective order. It noted that Lin’s counsel had previously disclosed information in violation of that order and warned that any further violation would result in sanctions. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order to resolve these discovery disputes; the opinion did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.