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

Thus, the California Supreme Court has held that “[c]ontact information regarding the identity of potential class members is generally discoverable, so that the lead plaintiff may learn the names of other persons who might assist in prosecuting the case.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 373.)

In analyzing these privacy concerns, courts have first applied the “analytical framework” established by Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1. The person whose privacy rights are at stake must (1) possess a “legally protected privacy interest,” (2) have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and (3) the privacy invasion must be “serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact.” (Hill, at pp. 35–37.) “If a claimant meets these criteria, the court must balance the privacy interest at stake against other competing or countervailing interests.” (Belaire-West Landscape Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 558-559 [citing Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370-371].)

As explained in Belaire-West, employees whose contact information is sought from their employer in discovery generally cannot satisfy Hill criteria (2) and (3). Their contact information is a legally protected privacy interest satisfying the first factor, but in giving their information to their employer, they (2) “might reasonably expect, and even hope, that their names and addresses would be given” to “a class action plaintiff who may ultimately recover for them unpaid wages [or other relief] that they are owed.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 554; Belaire-West, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 561.)

And though contact information can be misused, it is (3) “not particularly sensitive, unlike medical or financial details,” and any potential misuse is mitigated if the disclosure is “limited to the named plaintiff in a putative class action filed against their employer following a written notice to each employee giving them the opportunity to object to the disclosure of that information.” (Belaire-West, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at pp. 561-562.)

The Regents argue that an opt-in process should be adopted because disclosure of identity would reveal medical information, at least for employees who were suspended or terminated for non-compliance with the Regent’s policy. (Stmt. at 9.) This concern is obviated by sending a single Belaire-West notice to all putative class members with an opportunity to opt-out. Even specifically disclosing the names and contact information of putative class members who were suspended or terminated for non-compliance does not reveal sensitive medical information, other than that they refused to receive the vaccine.

This is not the type of sensitive medical information that the Court of Appeal was concerned with in Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 288, 308–09 (involving disclosure of a specific medical condition, syphilis, which would have implicated the physician-patient privilege).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV019075: RAKE, M.D. vs REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Discovery Summary Adjudication Motion No. 3 to Determine the Scope and Content of a Belaire-West Notice; filed by Christopher Rake, M.D. (Plaintiff) + CRS# A-19075-010 in Department 18 Plaintiffs’ request that a Belaire-West notice be sent to the putative class (i.e., all employees subject to the at-issue policy) with the opportunity to opt of disclosure of their contact information is GRANTED.

Subclass Identities/Information

As discussed above, notice is to be provided to the entire putative class, and the opportunity to opt-out includes the subclasses of employees addressed in Motion No.

2. Discovery, however, is currently “limited to issues relating to class certification.” (Order, entered July 19, 2024.)

Considering these issues, Plaintiffs’ requests for systemwide production of information and records of individual employees are overbroad and not adequately addressed by the Stipulated Protective Order. The court orders the following:

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to contact information employees who were suspended or terminated as a result of the COVID-19 policy at UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, and UCSF. The Regents have collected data regarding terminated or suspended employees at these campuses, and the court finds this scope adequate precertification. Before the Regents are required to disclose contact information for this category, a Belaire-West notice shall be sent to current or former employees with an opportunity to opt out of disclosure, as discussed above.

The court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that notice is not required based on Plaintiffs’ perception that these employees or former employees “have already indicated an interest in the subject matter of the litigation.” This order is without prejudice to a motion to compel additional information based on a specific showing of relevance to class certification.

The motion is also GRANTED IN PART as to communications with employees regarding the Program policies and enforcement (RFP No. 3). Such communications are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on class certification. To the extent the production of the communications would include disclosure of any employee’s personal information, the personal information should be both designated confidential under the protective order and redacted to the extent an employee objects to disclosure pursuant to the Belaire-West notice process discussed above.

Plaintiffs’ other requests for relief are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Requests for individualized documents or records pertaining to any absent class members are premature before class certification. Contact information concerning employees who applied for a religious or medical exemption is premature. Likewise, contact information concerning employees “who complained or otherwise reported a disability or adverse event” after receiving a vaccination is premature and not essential to class certification.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV019075: RAKE, M.D. vs REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Discovery Summary Adjudication Motion No. 3 to Determine the Scope and Content of a Belaire-West Notice; filed by Christopher Rake, M.D. (Plaintiff) + CRS# A-19075-010 in Department 18 Content

The parties present competing proposals regarding the content of the class notice. (Exhs. A & B). Plaintiffs seek to include language detailing the nature of their claims; that a class has not been certified; and information concerning the tolling of the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs also seek to include the identity of putative class counsel, including a website maintained by Plaintiffs’ counsel concerning the lawsuit.

The Regents argue that the notice should require putative class members to opt-in, which is addressed above in favor of a single opt-out process. The Regents further argue that Plaintiffs’ draft is argumentative, and there is no basis to include the provisions regarding tolling of the statute of limitations. (Stmt. at 11-12.)

The court agrees that The Regents’ proposed notice is appropriately objective and neutral. The Regents’ form is adopted, other than requiring putative class members to opt-out rather than opt-in of disclosure.