On 06/09/2016 COMMUNITY FAMILY CARE MEDICAL GROUP IPA INC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against REGAL MEDICAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RICHARD E. RICO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RICHARD E. RICO
COMMUNITY FAMILY CARE MEDICAL GROUP IPA
REGAL MEDICAL GROUP INC.
HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK INC.
DOES 1 THROUGH 10
ROY MEDICAL GROUP INC.
LAKESIDE MEDICAL ORGANIZATION A MEDICAL GROUP
SIERRA MEDICAL GROUP INC.
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG S STEINBERG
STEINBERG CRAIG S
TORRES PAUL MICHAEL
ROY RAJ D
AMIR MICHAEL M
3/16/2018: DEFENDANTS REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK, INC., SIERRA MEDICAL GROUP, INC. AND LAKESIDE MEDICAL ORGANIZATION, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF D
4/27/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CRAIG STEINBERG
5/7/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DEMURRERS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE
5/9/2018: REPLY TO OPPOSITION BY ROSALINDA ROY TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
5/24/2018: SECOND AMENDED SUMMONS
6/8/2018: Minute Order
6/20/2018: DEFENDANT ROY MEDICAL GROUP'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMMUNITY FAMILY CARE MEDICAI GROUP IPA, INC.'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC
6/29/2018: NOTICE OF ORDER
9/4/2018: OPPOSITIONS BY COMMUNITY FAMILY CARE MEDICAL GROUP IPA, INC., TO DEMURRERS BY ROY MEDICAL GROUP
12/5/2018: Minute Order
6/9/2016: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS; ETC.
11/7/2016: NOTICE OF FILING OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE ETC.
11/29/2016: FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: (1) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE ? 17200, ET SEQ.; ETC.
2/6/2017: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
2/21/2017: CONSOLIDATED DECLARATION OF JAMIE 0. KENDALL IN SUPPORT DEFENDANT REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND FORM I
3/2/2017: NOTICE OF FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE; AND NOTICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Heritage Provider Network, Inc. (Defendant); Regal Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( FOR RULING RELATING CASES OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE CONCERNING WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED; DECLARATION OF PAUL TORRES) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Deem Cases Related) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR RULING RELATING CASES OR...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Opposition (to Ex Parte Application to Relate Cases); Filed by Community Family Care Medical Group IPA, (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Michael M Amir (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
Response (to Community Family Care Medical Group IPA Inc's response and Opposition to the Notice of Related Cases filed by Roy Medical Group); Filed by Roy Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (to Notice of Related Cases); Filed by Community Family Care Medical Group IPA, (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Heritage Provider Network, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF DEMURRERS AND DEMURRERS TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ETCRead MoreRead Less
Demurrer; Filed by Community Family Care Medical Group IPA, (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Regal Medical Group, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: (1) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, ET SEQ.; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Regal Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS; ETC.Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Community Family Care Medical Group IPA, (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC623311 Hearing Date: March 8, 2021 Dept: 52
Defendants Regal Medical Group, Inc., Heritage Provider Network, Inc., Sierra Medical Group, Inc., and Lakeside Medical Organization, A Medical Group, Inc.’s Application to Seal Exhibits 12, 19-25 in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
The court having read the papers and there being no opposition rules as follows:
Defendants seek to seal the entirety of exhibits 12 and 19 to 25 in support of their motion for summary judgment. Exhibits 12 is plaintiff’s sample provider agreement. Exhibits 19-21 are portions of Heritage Provider Network’s delegation agreements with the medical group defendants. Exhibit 22 is the primary care agreement between Dr. Lawrence Menzer and Regal. Exhibit 23 is the MA Downstream Provider contract addendum between Dr. Menzer and Regal. Exhibit 24 is a sample contract that reflects the financial terms defendants offered to physicians for providing care to Medi-Cal members. Finally, exhibit 25 is a one-page sample “Choice Letter” from physicians to patients sent when the physicians move to a different Independent Physicians Association.
CRC 2.550(d) provides:
A court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
“[C]onfidential matters relating to the business operations of defendant” can constitute an overriding interest that justifies sealing of records when “public revelation of [the] matters would interfere with its ability to effectively compete in the marketplace… .” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1286.)
Defendants fail to provide facts establishing that the potential overriding interest supports sealing the record. They do not explain what exactly in these exhibits constitutes a confidential matter and why public disclosure would interfere with the parties’ businesses.
Even if defendants established the first three elements, they do not meet the final two elements. Rather than sealing the entirety of these exhibits, defendants could redact the sensitive portions. Any overriding interest applies only to some sections of the exhibits. For example, not all of the numerous definitions in Exhibits 12 and 19-23 are confidential business information.
The motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Please contact Department 52 at SMCDEPT52@lacourt.org to advise the courtroom staff if parties are submitting on the court’s tentative ruling. Please provide the Case Name, Case Number, and party.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases