GIANNE, et al. vs CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA

24CV071744: GIANNE, et al. vs CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Natalie Gianne (Plaintiff) + CRS# 138443794113 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/08/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed by Lisa Reingold, Derron Pocci, Taje Gill, Natalie Gianne on 08/10/2026 is Granted in Part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Natalie Gianne, Taje Gill, Derron Pocci, and Lisa Reingold allege that Defendant California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California wrongfully intercepted and disclosed patients’ medical information by installing Google Analytics on its website and allowing Google to record, transmit, and store confidential communications. Plaintiffs bring this putative class action based on six causes of action: (1) violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code 631) – wiretapping, (2) violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 632) – recording, (3) violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 632.01) – disclosure of medical information, (4) violation of California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), (5) common law invasion of privacy, and (6) violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The original complaint was filed on April 12, 2024. Blue Shield then hired Seyfarth Shaw LLP to investigate the allegations and advise on the associated legal risks. Seyfarth Shaw retained AlixPartners to assist.

One year later, on April 4, 2025, Blue Shield of California issued a notice to certain of its members informing them of a potential data breach: “On February 11, 2025, Blue Shield discovered that, between April 2021 and January 2024, Google Analytics was configured in a way that allowed certain member data to be shared with Google’s advertising product, Google Ads, that likely included protected health information.” (Edelman Decl., Ex. O.) Defendant contends that the notice was sent as a result of the investigation and at the direction of counsel.

Plaintiffs served discovery regarding the notice on March 18, 2026 and took a deposition of Blue Shield’s corporate representative on April 2, 2026. Defendant took the position that all information generated in connection with Blue Shield’s investigation of the complaint, including draft notifications and related materials, are privileged, rendering only “final external breach notifications and communications” discoverable. (Id., Ex. G.)

Plaintiffs move to compel (1) code-compliant responses to Requests for Production Nos. 38–55; (2) a resumed deposition of Blue Shield’s corporate witness; and (3) further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 16, 22, and 35. After the filing on this motion, Blue Shield agreed to review 24CV071744: GIANNE, et al. vs CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Natalie Gianne (Plaintiff) + CRS# 138443794113 in Department 18 and produce responsive custodial documents through October 2025, subject to its objections.

The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification is February 17, 2027, and the motion is set for hearing on June 16, 2027.

LEGAL STANDARDS

“The attorney-client privilege attaches to a confidential communication between the attorney and the client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of whether it includes unprivileged material.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Ct. (2009) 47 Cal. 4th 725, 734, 219 P.3d 736, 741 (2009).) The parties agree that the attorney-client privilege does not attach if the client’s “dominant purpose in retaining the attorney was something other than to provide the client with a legal opinion or legal advice.” (Id., p. 735.)

“California law protects the work product of attorneys and those assisting them in investigating facts related to providing a client legal advice.” (S. California Edison Co. v. Superior Ct. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 573, 577.) Work product protection is “not limited to documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.” (Id., p. 585.)

DISCUSSION

Requests for Production

The motion is granted in part with respect to RFP No. 40 & 44. The requests permissibly seek data and reports referred to in the published Notice. Otherwise, the requests seek attorney-client privileged and/or work product protected documents.

The motion is denied with respect to RFP Nos. 52 & 53, as they do not seek non-privileged information beyond that which would be provided in response to Interrogatory No. 16, addressed below.

The motion is granted in part as to RFP No.

55. Defendant must produce documents “identified, relied upon, or referenced in” its responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Special Interrogatories.

The motion to compel is denied as to all remaining requests, as they seek attorney-client communications and/or work product created in the course of Blue Shield’s investigation. To the extent the requests cover work product other than writings reflecting attorney impressions, Plaintiff has not established unfair prejudice or that denial of discovery will result in an injustice. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (b)). Where appropriate, Blue Shield has committed to producing non-privileged documents and communications. (E.g., RFP Nos. 51, 54.) No more is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV071744: GIANNE, et al. vs CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Natalie Gianne (Plaintiff) + CRS# 138443794113 in Department 18 Deposition Questions

The motion is granted as to those questions which do not implicate attorney-client privileged communications or work product created in connection with Blue Shield’s investigation: o No. 2: “Did Blue Shield have to consider those medical privacy laws, HIPAA, and breach notification laws when deciding whether to issue notice in regards to the sharing of information on its website?” o No. 4: “Who first discovered the issue referenced in Exhibit 2?” o No. 7: “Who had final approval over content in the form of Exhibit 2?” o No. 11: “But for Exhibit 3, my question is who had final approval over the wording in Exhibit 3?” o No. 12: “So who made the decision to add the revised language?” o No. 37: “Who was the person at Blue Shield who made the decision to reach out to Google?” These questions seek facts relating to the published notice, rather than insight into counsel’s theories.

The motion is granted with respect to the questions regarding the purpose and scope of the investigation: o No. 26: “What was the scope of Seyfarth’s engagement with Blue Shield?” o No. 27: “What was Seyfarth hired to do?” o No. 28: “Did Seyfarth create any type of written report or presentation or summary relating to its work that it did for Blue Shield?” o No. 29: “Did Seyfarth produce any work product in written form related to its work with Blue Shield?” o No. 30: “Was Alix Partners retained by Seyfarth, or was Alix Partners retained by Blue Shield?” o No. 31: “Did Alix Partners create any kind of written report, presentation, memorandum, or other written deliverable as part of its work done for Blue Shield?” o No. 40: “Are outside counsel at Seyfarth and Baker Hostetler communicating with each other in connection with the facts underlying this lawsuit?” As the court understands it, Blue Shield has yet to produce a privilege log, and these questions may be relevant to Plaintiffs’ evaluation of any claims of privilege.

The motion is denied as to Question No.

38. Defendant admits its website configuration is not privileged, but there is no indication that the question fell within the scope of the noticed topics. This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to obtain information regarding whether “Blue Shield’s website configured to send the categories of information on the notice to Google during the relevant period” through other discovery requests.

The motion to compel is denied as to all remaining deposition questions, as they seek attorneyclient communications and/or work product created in the course of Blue Shield’s investigation.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV071744: GIANNE, et al. vs CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Natalie Gianne (Plaintiff) + CRS# 138443794113 in Department 18 Special Interrogatories

The motion to compel is denied as to Interrogatory Nos. 22 and 35, as these requests seek insight into Blue Shield’s legal decisions. To the extent the requests cover work product other than writings reflecting attorney impressions, Plaintiff has not established unfair prejudice or that denial of discovery will result in an injustice. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (b).) Plaintiffs are likely entitled to seek discovery on the methods by which notice was delivered, Defendant’s security protocols, or the identity of any analytics tracking software in use during the relevant period. But they are not entitled to ask about Defendant’s decisions in the course of its investigation.

The motion, however, is granted as to Interrogatory No. 16, which asks Defendant to identify “all Blue Shield personnel, third party persons or entities, or anyone working on your behalf involved in drafting, publishing, revising, sending, or removing the Notice published to the Blue Shield Website.” Defendant asserts work product protection, arguing that a “compelled roster would reveal more than names; it would reveal the structure and scope of counsel’s investigation, including whom counsel selected, what functions counsel assigned, and which consultants or personnel counsel deemed relevant.” The request does not ask for any information beyond identification of the personnel who were involved in specific tasks. (Cf.

Aerojet-Gen. Corp. v. Transp. Indem. Ins. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004 [“the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts” not protected work product].)

In Coito, cited by Defendant, the Supreme Court held that a party objecting to disclosure of the witnesses identified by an investigation would usually be required to answer the interrogatory but might be entitled to protection based on “a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveal the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney's industry or efforts.” (Coito v. Superior Ct. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502.) Plaintiff is not seeking witness statements, and Defendant has not explained how the requested information would reveal any work product.

ORDER

The motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above. Defendant must comply with this order in timely completing discovery.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest, the tentative ruling will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest must notify the court and all parties via eCourt and email (Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov) by 10:00 am on the day of the hearing.