Sally Novotny Vaziri et al v. Odd Fellows Home of California, et al

The Separate Statement provides that “[d]uring Wetzel’s deposition, she refused to answer three questions . . ..” (Separate Statement at 5:26-27.) The Court, therefore, presumes that Plaintiffs, by the instant Motion, seek to compel the deponent to answer the questions set forth at 1:22-23, 4:25, and 5:12 of the Separate Statement.

Defendant opposes the Motion arguing that “[t]he disputed questions improperly invade Ms. Wetzel’s constitutional right to privacy in medical and health-related information . . ..” (Opposition at 2:14-16.) Counsel for Defendant raised the privacy objection, at deposition, in

response to each of the three subject questions. (See Separate Statement at 2:9-13, 5:1-4, and 5:13-15.)

“The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) In Hill, we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id. at pp. 35–37.)

The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. (Id. at pp. 37–40.)” (Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) “Courts must . . . place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies, as Hill requires.

What suffices to justify an invasion will . . . vary according to the context.” (Id. at 557.)

As presented in the Separate Statement, the first question asks, “is the reason that you left your job at – at North Bay Healthcare over this license issue?” (Separate Statement at 1:22-23.) Plaintiffs provide some context for the question by arguing that “[a]ccording to the Accusation of the Board of Registered Nursing, Wetzel was subject to discipline because she reported to work at NorthBay Medical Center under the influence of alcohol and sleeping pills, with a blood alcohol content of.242 percent . . ..” (Separate Statement at 6:23-26.) This is the extent of the information provided to the Court regarding the nature of this question.

Ms. Wetzel unquestionably enjoys a right to privacy which extends to her personal medical records and medical information. (See, e.g., Davis v. Super. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1019 (Davis) [“[i]t has been held that a person's medical profile is an area of privacy which cannot be compromised except upon good cause”].)

The Court finds, from the fact that the line of questioning relates to disciplinary action based on alcohol and sleeping pill usage, that the threatened intrusion into Ms. Wetzel’s medical records and/or medical information is serious. Ms. Wetzel has done nothing to invite the instant intrusion. While Ms. Wetzel is affiliated with a party, she is not, herself, a party to the litigation. Moreover, it does not appear that Ms. Wetzel was directly involved in the matters alleged in the operative Complaint. Her involvement is tangential, at best. Moreover, Defendant notes that the incident underlying the disciplinary action occurred in 2018. The Court notes that the events giving rise to the instant lawsuit are alleged to have occurred between August and September 2024.

Based on the foregoing, the Court entertains significant doubt as to the likelihood that matters relating to the incident leading to the disciplinary hearing are either relevant to the claims in this action or are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This, likelihood, of course, is directly related to Plaintiffs’ interest in the subject discovery, which interest the Court must balance against Wentzel’s right to maintain her privacy in the information.

Plaintiffs argue that “Defendants . . . chose to make Wetzel the head nurse at their facility just two years after her license was reinstated, giving her significant authority over the personnel and conditions that Plaintiffs allege led to Mr. Russell Novotny's death. Therefore, testimony regarding the circumstances leading to Wetzel's disciplinary hearing, how it may have affected her employment and fitness, whether Defendants were on notice of Wetzel's licensure issues and history of substance abuse, and what Defendants’ hiring process entails are all relevant.” (Separate Statement at 6:27-7:4.)

Plaintiffs fail, however, to provide the Court, through the Separate Statement, with any information regarding: (1) the nature of Wetzel’s job at North Bay Healthcare; (2) when she chose to end that employment; (3) how the grounds for her decision to leave that position relate to any of “[a] the circumstances leading to Wetzel’s disciplinary hearing, [b] how it may have affected her employment and fitness, [c] whether Defendants were on notice of Wetzel’s licensure issues and history of substance abuse, [d] what Defendants’ hiring process entails”; and/or (4) when Wetzel was reinstated. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c) [“[t]he separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response”].) Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs’ interest in discovering the information outweighs Wetzel’s interest in maintaining her privacy in and to the information.

The Court is unable to meaningfully interpret the other two questions based on the information identified. The second question identified in the Separate Statement asks, “[i]s that an accurate statement of what happened?” (Id. at 4:25.) The third question identified in the Separate Statement asks, “[y]our story, what do you mean by your story?” (Id. at 5:12.) The Separate Statement contains no discussion of the context of either question, and no explanation or discussion regarding the nature of the information sought to be discovered thereby.

Plaintiffs provide limited context by way of argument through the Support Memo. (See id. at 8:2-14.) The arguments are not sufficient, however, to permit the Court, with any confidence, to understand precisely what information is sought. The only portions of the deposition transcript cited in support of these arguments are the actual questions, providing the Court with no further context. As noted above, “[t]he separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.” (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c).) Moreover, it is not the Court’s obligation to search the 174-page deposition transcript in an effort to locate context sufficient to understand what information is sought by these two questions. (See Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 927, 934 [“Rules of Court rule 3.1113 rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party's theories by freeing it from any obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide”].)

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is DENIED.

7