Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

RHODES v. SUTTER HEALTH, 2:12-cv-00013-WBS-DAD. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130411833 Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO SUTTER HEALTH DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff BETH RHODES ("Plaintiff") and Defendants SUTTER GOULD MEDICAL FOUNDATION ("SGMF") and GOULD MEDICAL GROUP, INC. ("GMG") (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record herein, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, on February 19, 2013, Plaintiff served on Defendants a Notice of Subpoena Requesting Documents To Be Served on Sutter Health ("the Sub
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO SUTTER HEALTH

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff BETH RHODES ("Plaintiff") and Defendants SUTTER GOULD MEDICAL FOUNDATION ("SGMF") and GOULD MEDICAL GROUP, INC. ("GMG") (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record herein, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, on February 19, 2013, Plaintiff served on Defendants a Notice of Subpoena Requesting Documents To Be Served on Sutter Health ("the Subpoena");

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2013, Sutter Health and SGMF served their objections to the Subpoena;

WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, Sutter Health and SGMF served their amended objections to the Subpoena, and GMG served its objections to the Subpoena;

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Sutter Health, which is set to be heard on April 12, 2013 in Courtroom 27 of the above-entitled Court, before Judge Dale A. Drozd;

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred, and come to an agreement regarding the scope of the Subpoena;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE that Sutter Health will, in response to the Subpoena, survey the five Sutter-affiliated Foundation clinics other than SGMF listed in Attachment B to the Subpoena (i.e., Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation, Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation,1 Sutter Medical Foundation, and Sutter West Bay Medical Foundation) to determine if any of them had a written policy or protocol in effect at any time between January 2008 and December 2010 with regard to pre-biopsy surgical consultations, and which was the same or similar to the "Surgical Consult Prior to Breast Needle Biopsy" protocol at SGMF. If any such policies or protocols existed, Sutter Health will produce them to Plaintiff pursuant to the Subpoena and/or confirm that they once existed but have not been kept in electronic or paper form. If there were no such policies or protocols, Sutter Health will provide a verified certificate of no records that no such policies or protocols existed at each of the above-named Foundation clinics between January 2008 and December 2010. Sutter Health will complete these steps by no later than April 23, 2013, and produce all of the responsive policies or protocols and/or verified certificate of no records to Plaintiff's counsel on or before that date. This constitutes the entirety of Sutter Health's obligations under the Subpoena, and Plaintiff will not enforce the Subpoena as to the other Sutter-affiliates listed in Attachment B to the Subpoena.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation is listed in Attachment B to the Subpoena as Sutter Health Pacific.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer