RAKE, M.D. vs REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

22CV019075: RAKE, M.D. vs REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Motion for a Protective Order Allowing Redaction of Personal Health Information Pursuant to Summary Discovery Motion Procedures; filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# A- 19075-008 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 05/28/2026 Patrick McKinney

Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”) request that the court order language added to the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order that allows for the redaction of personal identifying information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) of unnamed putative class members and third parties.

The Regents’ request is GRANTED IN PART.

The Regents request the addition of the following language to Paragraph 4(a) of the Stipulated Protective Order:

A party may redact personally identifying information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) of individuals other than named Plaintiffs prior to production to the extent practicable. PII/PHI includes, but is not limited to, first and last names, addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, birth date and death date, social security numbers, medical record numbers, dates of service (except year), health plan beneficiary numbers, certificate/license numbers (including driver’s license and any other identification number), photographic images of patient’s face and any comparable image, and any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code such as member IDs, employee IDs, claim numbers, etc.

In support of the request, the Regents argue that the redactions are appropriate based on the right of privacy. (Stmt. at 5-7.) The Regents rely on the discussion at a July 19, 2024 hearing where Judge Markman stated that appropriate discovery related to class certification includes “UC querying the Epic database or other relevant medical databases to get aggregate information relevant to class certification as opposed to and as distinct from individualized patient records . . . .” (Exh. A at 28:19-23.) At a September 9, 2025 IDC, Judge Markman further stated he was inclined “to permit redaction of social security numbers and employee id numbers and the like.” (Exh. B at 12:5-8.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs primarily argue that the current terms of the Protective Order are sufficient and blanket redactions of otherwise discoverable information are inappropriate.

The California Supreme Court in Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017) discussed restrictions on discovery to protect the privacy interests of third-party employees: 22CV019075: RAKE, M.D. vs REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Motion for a Protective Order Allowing Redaction of Personal Health Information Pursuant to Summary Discovery Motion Procedures; filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# A- 19075-008 in Department 18

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, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) 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 . . . .

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.

(Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 552.)

Here, the Hill factors and Williams do not support redactions of all of the information Plaintiffs seek. As the Supreme Court stated in Williams, “we doubt Williams’ fellow employees would expect [home contact information] to be withheld from a plaintiff seeking to prove labor law violations committed against them . . . .” (Id. at 554.) “At a minimum, fellow employees would have no reason to expect their information to be categorically withheld, without even an opportunity to opt in to or opt out of disclosure.” (Id.) The use of a Belaire-West notice process, which is the subject of Motion Nos. 2 & 3, should address any residual privacy concern that contact information has been shared without an employee’s permission.

Accordingly, subject to the rulings on the other motions, approved redactions of PII/PHI that may be included in Paragraph 4 of the Stipulated Protective Order are the following: social security numbers, medical record numbers, health plan beneficiary numbers, certificate/license numbers (including driver’s license and any other identification number), photographic images of patient’s face and any comparable image, and any other similar unique identifying number, characteristic, or code such as member IDs, employee IDs, claim numbers, etc.

The Regents may not redact the following categories of information for absent putative class members: names; home addresses, telephone numbers, and personal email addresses, subject to the notice procedure approved in the accompanying orders.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV019075: RAKE, M.D. vs REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Motion for a Protective Order Allowing Redaction of Personal Health Information Pursuant to Summary Discovery Motion Procedures; filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# A- 19075-008 in Department 18 at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.