Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 4th 579·16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 253
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 14, 1993B066187California3,463 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stanley K. Jacobs and Mark Allen Kleiman for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

KLEIN, P.J.

Petitioner Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars) seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying Cedars's request for a protective order. The trial court's order permitted real parties in interest Hendel Schwartz, Eric Schwartz, and Daniel Schwartz, by and through his guardian, Hendel Schwartz, (collectively, the Schwartzes) to discover in the course of their medical malpractice action the identities of the medical staff review committee members who had evaluated the obstetrical privileges held by the defendant physicians at Cedars.

The issue presented is whether Evidence Code section 1157 (section 1157) precludes such discovery. [1]

We grant Cedars's petition for writ of mandate because we conclude section 1157 embodies the Legislature's finding the public good is best served where medical staff review committees evaluate staff physicians in confidence. Therefore, the identities of such evaluators may not be discovered even though this may limit the ability of an individual plaintiff to discover relevant and admissible information. Accordingly, the trial…

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.