Asman

(PS) Schmitz v. Asman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 18, 20252:20-cv-00195California663 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THOMAS SCHMITZ, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00195 DJC CKD (PS) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER ADAM ASMAN, et al., Defendants.

17 Defendants Adams, Andaluz, Ashe, Asman, Branman, Brizendine, Brockenborough, Ceballos, Heatley, J. Johnson, R. Johnson, Kernan, Ponciano, Ramkumar, Rekart, Robinson, Rudas, M. Smith, C. Smith, Tebrock, Toche, and Waine (“defendants”) previously moved the court for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) limiting the scope of the third-party subpoena issued to Dr. Michael Golding. (ECF No. 323.) The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, and ordered documents be submitted for in camera review. (ECF No. 344.) The court has preliminarily reviewed the documents submitted for in camera review. For all categories of documents, defendants object based on physician-patient privilege and HIPAA. HIPPA creates a procedure for obtaining authority to use medical records in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.