This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:50:46 (UTC).

CEP AMERICA-CALIFORNIA VS HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK INC ET A

Case Summary

On 02/03/2017 CEP AMERICA-CALIFORNIA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK INC ET A. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9353

  • Filing Date:

    02/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

CEP AMERICA

CEP AMERICA-CALIFORNIA

CALIF. EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP

Defendants

COASTAL COMMUNITIES MEDICAL GROUP INC.

DESERT MEDICAL GROUP INC.

LAKESIDE MEDICAL GROUP INC.

HIGH DESERT MEDICAL CORPORATION

HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK INC.

REGAL MEDICAL GROUP INC.

BAKERSFIELD FAMILY MEDICAL GROUP INC.

OASIS INDEPENDENT MEDICAL ASSOC. INC.

SIERRA MEDICAL GROUP INC.

AFFILIATED DOCS OF ORANGE CNTY MED. GROUP

Not Classified By Court

HEALTHCARE PARTNERS AFFILIATES MEDICAL GROUP

ALLIED PHYSICIANS OF CALIFORNIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GORDON BRIDGET ANN

SIEGEL JENNIFER LAUREN

TOOCH DARON LAEL

Defendant Attorneys

KENDALL JAMIE OLIVIA

MOON KIRK LEONARD

AMIR MICHAEL M

VU LLOYD HONG QUAN

Not Classified By Court Attorney

SANDLER JONATHAN CHARLES

 

Court Documents

Declaration

6/5/2019: Declaration

Separate Statement

6/5/2019: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

6/5/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

6/6/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Stipulation and Order

6/7/2019: Stipulation and Order

Declaration

6/7/2019: Declaration

Motion for Protective Order

6/7/2019: Motion for Protective Order

Stipulation and Order

6/7/2019: Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order

6/7/2019: Stipulation and Order

Notice

6/11/2019: Notice

Minute Order

6/11/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

6/11/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice of Ruling

6/11/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

6/12/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application

6/13/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

6/13/2019: Minute Order

Notice

6/13/2019: Notice

Stipulation and Order

6/14/2019: Stipulation and Order

109 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/25/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Order To Continue The Trial Date; Declaration Of Lloyd Vu) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Production (of documents;) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE); Filed by Affiliated Docs of Orange Cnty Med. Group (Defendant); Bakersfield Family Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant); Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (RE DEFENDANTS? MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO THE FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND THIRD PARTY PRODUCTION AND THIRD PARTY HEALTHCARE PARTNERS AFFILIATES MEDICAL GROUP'SGROUP?S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE | ORDER); Filed by Affiliated Docs of Orange Cnty Med. Group (Defendant); Bakersfield Family Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant); Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (For Order To Continue The Trial Date); Filed by Affiliated Docs of Orange Cnty Med. Group (Defendant); Bakersfield Family Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant); Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
202 More Docket Entries
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Affiliated Docs of Orange Cnty Med. Group (Defendant); Bakersfield Family Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant); Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by CEP America-California (Plaintiff); Calif. Emergency Physicians Medical Group (Legacy Party); CEP America (Legacy Party)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT/QUA NTUM MERUIT; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by CEP America-California (Plaintiff); Calif. Emergency Physicians Medical Group (Legacy Party); CEP America (Legacy Party)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9353 Hearing Date: January 14, 2022 Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

CEP AMERICA-CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK, INC. , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

****9353

Hearing Date:

January 14, 2022

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

motion for an order compelling plaintiff to provide FURTHER responses to REQUESTS for production, set TWO

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Heritage Provider Network, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CEP America-California

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

DISCUSSION

On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the demanding party deems that the response is deficient. (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.310, subd. (a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

Defendant Heritage Provider Network, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff CEP America-California (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 67-78 in Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.

Plaintiff primarily objects to those document requests on the grounds that they call for production of information protected by the trade secret privilege and they are unduly burdensome.

Evidence Code section 1060 establishes a trade secret privilege. In Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393, the California Supreme Court held that, when a party claims the trade secret privilege, the court must balance the interests of both sides as follows. First, the party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing its existence. (Ibid. [citing Evid. Code, 405; Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Richard A. Glass Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 703, 715].) “Thereafter, the party seeking discovery must make a prima facie, particularized showing that the information sought is relevant and necessary to the proof of, or defense against, a material element of one or more causes of action presented in the case, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the information sought is essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Ibid.) Finally, the holder of the privilege must demonstrate any claimed disadvantages of a protective order, including that “an alternative to disclosure will not be unduly burdensome to the opposing side and that it will maintain the same fair balance in the litigation that would have been achieved by disclosure.” (Ibid.)

Here, the court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of establishing the documents sought by Requests Nos. 67-78 are protected by the trade secret privilege. (Piccinini Decl., filed February 4, 2021, 5-12.) The court also finds that Defendant has not met its burden of making a prima facie, particularized showing that the information sought by those requests is relevant and necessary to the proof of, or defense against, a material element of one or more causes of action presented in the case, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the information sought is essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. As Plaintiff asserts in its opposition, Defendant has not shown that the information sought by Defendant in those requests about various sources of Plaintiff’s income are relevant and necessary to the issue of the reasonable and customary value of the medical services rendered to Defendant’s customers in dispute in this case.

The court also finds that Requests Nos. 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 77, and 78 are overbroad and unduly burdensome. For example, Request No. 67 asks for “All DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify the revenues that YOU receive from any source, on an annual basis.”

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court denies defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set Two.

The court orders Plaintiff to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 14, 2022

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****9353 Hearing Date: January 5, 2022 Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – central District

Department 53

cep america-california ;

Plaintiff,

vs.

heritage provider network, inc. , et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

****9353

Hearing Date:

January 5, 2022

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Heritage Provider Network, Inc., Regal Medical Group, Inc., Lakeside Medical Organization, a Medical Group, Inc., Oasis Independent Medical Associates, Inc., Desert Medical Group, Inc., High Desert Medical Corporation, a Medical Group, Affiliated Doctors of Orange County Medical Group, Bakersfield Family Medical Group; Sierra Medical Group, Inc., and Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CEP America-California

Motion for Summary Adjudication

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

background

On February 3, 2017, plaintiff CEP America-California (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Heritage Provider Network, Inc., Regal Medical Group, Inc., Lakeside Medical Organization, a Medical Group, Inc. (sued as Lakeside Medical Group, Inc.), Oasis Independent Medical Associates, Inc., Desert Medical Group, Inc., High Desert Medical Corporation, Affiliated Doctors of Orange County Medical Group, Bakersfield Family Medical Group, Inc., Sierra Medical Group, Inc., and Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied contract/quantum meruit, (2) common count, (3) declaratory relief, and (4) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)).

The Complaint alleges the following. Plaintiff is one of the largest providers of emergency department management and staffing solutions in the nation. (Compl., 3.) Defendant Heritage Provider Network, Inc. (“HPN”) is a licensed health care service plan within the meaning of the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, California Health and Safety Code section 1340 et seq. (the “Knox-Keene Act”). (Compl., 5.) HPN enters into contracts with other health service plans (the “Plans”), to arrange and take financial risk for the health care services provided to the Plans’ enrollees (the “Members”), in exchange of large periodic payments from the Plans. (Compl., 5.) This lawsuit arises out of Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff the reasonable and customary value of the health care services that Plaintiff provided to the Plans’ Members. (Compl., 9, 16, 30, 40.)

Defendants now move for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s third cause of action for declaratory relief and fourth cause of action for unfair business practices.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court denies Defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed April 27, 2021, as to Exhibits 1 through 4.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant or cross-defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

DISCUSSION

For the purposes of this motion for summary adjudication, Defendants will have met their burden of showing that Plaintiff’s third cause of action for declaratory relief and fourth cause of action for unfair business practices have no merit, if they show that one or more elements of those causes of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to those causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

  1. Plaintiff’s Standing to Bring its Claims for Declaratory Relief and Unfair Business Practices

“Under federal and state law, a hospital is required to provide ‘necessary stabilizing treatment’ for any person in an ‘emergency medical condition.’ (42 U.S.C. 1395dd, subd. (b); Health & Saf. Code, 1317, subd. (a).) [Footnote omitted.]” (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 323, 329 [“Long Beach Memorial”].) “If that person is covered by a health care service plan, California’s Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (the Knox-Keene Act) ( 1340 et seq.) requires the plan to reimburse the hospital for providing such ‘emergency services and care.’” (Ibid.) “When the hospital or other medical providers have a contract with the plan, the plan must reimburse them for the services at the ‘agreed upon contract rate.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 334.) “However, when the hospital or other medical providers do not have a contract with the plan, the plan is statutorily obligated to reimburse the hospital or providers for the ‘reasonable and customary value [of] the [emergency] health care services rendered.’” (Id. at pp. 334-335 citing California Code of Regulations, title 28, section 1300.71, subd. (a)(3)(B) [“section 1300.71”].)

According to Defendants, Plaintiff’s declaratory relief and unfair business practices claims are premised on the fact that Defendants’ methodology for determining reasonable and customary value (the “R&C Methodology”) is improper because it does not comply with regulations promulgated by the Department of Managed Health Care (“DMHC”). However, Defendants contend, neither section 1300.71 nor the UCL give Plaintiff standing to challenge their R&C Methodology.

The court disagrees with Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its causes of action for declaratory relief and unfair business practices. In Long Beach Memorial, the Court of Appeal stated that, “[b]ecause a plaintiff states a claim under the unlawful prong of the unfair competition law by showing that the challenged practice violates a California ‘statute or regulation’ [citations], a plaintiff may as a general matter state a claim under the unfair competition law for a violation of the Knox-Keene Act.” (Long Beach Memorial, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 342 [citing Bell v. Blue Cross of California (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 211 (“Bell”) and other cases].) In addition, in Bell, the Court of Appeal held that an emergency room physician was free to pursue alternate theories (including declaratory relief) to recover the reasonable value of his services under the Knox-Keene Act. (Bell, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th 211, 2114-215.) Therefore, Plaintiff has standing to bring its third cause of action for declaratory relief and fourth cause of action for unfair business practices.

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of showing that there is a complete defense (lack of standing) to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for declaratory relief and fourth cause of action for unfair business practices. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The court therefore denies Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication to the extent it is based on Defendants’ affirmative defense that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring those causes of action.

  1. Third Cause of Action – Declaratory Relief

“A complaint for declaratory relief must demonstrate: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.” (Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410; City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79.)

Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for declaratory relief because (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge Defendants’ methodology for paying the “reasonable and customary value” of services rendered by CEP, (2) the alleged conduct is not “unlawful” such that it gives Plaintiff standing to bring the cause of action under the UCL, and (3) the DMHC has exclusive jurisdiction to evaluate and redress alleged unfair or wrongful payment patterns. (Motion, p. 3:8-13.)

First, as discussed above, Plaintiff does not lack standing to bring its third cause of action for declaratory relief. Second, as discussed above, Plaintiff has standing to bring a cause of action under the UCL for a violation of the Knox-Keene Act. (Long Beach Memorial, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 342.) Third, the DMHC does not have exclusive jurisdiction under the Knox-Keene Act. (Bell, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 216 [“Although the Department of Managed Health Care has jurisdiction over the subject matter of section 1371.4 (as well as the rest of the Knox–Keene Act), its jurisdiction is not exclusive and there is nothing in section 1371.4 or in the Act generally to preclude a private action under the UCL or at common law on a quantum meruit theory”].)

Defendants contend that, even if the court were to find that Plaintiff has standing to bring its declaratory relief cause of action, the court “should abstain from ruling on the propriety of Defendants’ R&C Methodology, which involves economic, demographic, statistical and other factors, all of which requires considerations of complex economic policy in the health care finance industry, an area that is exclusive province of the DMHC and for which the DMHC is best equipped.” (Motion, p. 3:14-19.)

“Under the abstention doctrine, ‘a trial court may abstain from adjudicating a suit that seeks equitable remedies if ‘granting the requested relief would require a trial court to assume the functions of an administrative agency, or to interfere with the functions of an administrative agency.’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 147 [“Hambrick”].) “Abstention may also be appropriate if ‘“the lawsuit involves determining complex economic policy, which is best handled by the Legislature or an administrative agency,”’ or if ‘“granting injunctive relief would be unnecessarily burdensome for the trial court to monitor and enforce given the availability of more effective means of redress.”’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 147-148.)

However, “[t]he correct interpretation of a statute is a particularly suitable subject for a judicial declaration.” (Kirkwood v. California State Automobile Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 49, 59.) Resort to declaratory relief therefore is appropriate to attain judicial clarification of the parties’ rights and obligations under the applicable law.” (Ibid.)

Here, Health and Safety Code section 1371 requires a health service plan (like Defendants) to notify the claimant in writing, “that the claim is contested or denied, within 30 working days after receipt of the claim by the health care service plan . . . .” (Health & Saf. Code, 1371, subd. (a)(1).) “The notice that a claim is being contested shall identify the portion of the claim that is contested and the specific reasons for contesting the claim.” (Ibid.) The Complaint alleges that Defendants “[f]ailed to properly contest CEP’s bills, including timely specifying the reasons for any contest, in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Health & Safety Code Sections 1371 and 1371.35, and the related regulations at 28 C.C.R. 1300.71.” (Compl., 37(b).) Therefore, the Complaint asks the court to determine what the parties’ rights and obligations are, under Health and Safety Code section 1371 and other statutes, in the event that Defendants contest Plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement. The court finds that request is appropriate for a declaratory relief cause of action.

Even if the court were to agree with Defendants that some allegations in Plaintiff’s cause of action for declaratory relief are not proper subjects for declaratory relief (because they involve complex economic policies), summary adjudication would still not be proper. “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “[P]iecemeal adjudication of factual allegations supporting a claim . . . is prohibited by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) unless the entire claim . . . can be eliminated.” (Catalano v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 91, 97.) Here, Defendants have not met their burden of showing that the statutory requirements for contesting claims are not proper subjects of declaratory relief, or that there is no actual controversy between the parties regarding the contesting claims issue.

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of showing that the third cause of action for declaratory relief has no merit because Defendants have not shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The court therefore denies Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for declaratory relief.

  1. Fourth Cause of Action – Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200

“The unfair competition law affords two types of relief—namely, restitution and injunctive relief.” (Long Beach Memorial, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 342.) Plaintiff seeks restitution and injunctive relief in its fourth cause of action for unfair business practices (the “UCL claim”). (Compl., 43, 44.)

As to restitution, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s UCL claim seeks to recover the same monetary relief that Plaintiff seeks to recover in other causes of action. (Motion, pp. 20:16-19; 23:6-9.)

In Long Beach Memorial, hospitals sued the defendants (including Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) – an “insurance company” that provides medical insurance to its enrollees), after Kaiser used an internal methodology for calculating the reasonable value of medical services, and reimbursed the hospitals only 53 percent of the hospitals’ billed charges. (Long Beach Memorial, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 331.) The hospitals alleged that Kaiser and the other defendants violated the UCL by “‘systematically failing to pay [and] underpaying’ the reimbursement required by the Knox-Keene Act.” (Id. at p. 333.)

The Court of Appeal held that the hospitals may seek restitution under the UCL for Kaiser’s violation of its Knox-Keene Act duty to reimburse them for the “reasonable and customary value” of the emergency medical services they provided to Kaiser enrollees, but that restitutionary award was indistinguishable from the award they would receive through their quantum meruit claim. (Long Beach Memorial, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 343.)

Here, in its UCL claim, Plaintiff alleges that it “seeks restitution of an amount to be proved at trial, in the amounts that defendants kept which it was obligated to pay to [Plaintiff], plus applicable statutory interest at 15% per annum.” (Compl., 43.) Likewise, in the first cause of action for quantum meruit, Plaintiff alleges that it “has been damaged to the extent that defendants have not paid the billed charges for the services it provided covered by the bills, in an amount to be proved at trial, but currently exceeding $3.3 million, and growing, plus interest at the statutory rate of fifteen percent (15%) pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 1371 and 1371.35.” Thus, like in Long Beach Memorial, the restitution that Plaintiff is seeking for its UCL claim is instinguishable from the monetary award Plaintiff seeks to recover on its quantum meruit claim.

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s UCL claim, to the extent that it requests restitution, is superfluous to other causes of action. (Motion, p. 23:9-10.) However, in Long Beach Memorial, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in dismissing the hospitals’ unfair competition claim to the extent that it sought restitution. (Long Beach Memorial, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 343.)

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of showing that the fourth cause of action for unfair business practices has no merit because Defendants have not shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The court therefore denies Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

ORDER

The court denies defendants Heritage Provider Network, Inc., Regal Medical Group, Inc., Lakeside Medical Organization, a Medical Group, Inc., Oasis Independent Medical Associates, Inc., Desert Medical Group, Inc., High Desert Medical Corporation, a Medical Group, Affiliated Doctors of Orange County Medical Group, Bakersfield Family Medical Group; Sierra Medical Group, Inc., and Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication as to the third cause of action for declaratory relief and fourth cause of action for unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

The court orders plaintiff CEP America-California to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2022

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



b'

Case Number: ****9353 Hearing Date: July 30, 2021 Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

CEP America-California ;

Plaintiff,

vs.

heritage provider network , et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

****9353

Hearing Date:

July 30, 2021

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication, Portions of Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts, and Exhibits to the Declaration of Jonathan Shin

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff CEP America-California

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication, Portions of Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts, and Exhibits to the Declaration of Jonathan Shin

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

  1. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).) If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

  1. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff CEP America-California (“CEP”) moves to seal the following: (1) Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jonathan Shin in Support of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication (“MSA”); (2) Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jonathan Shin in Support of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ MSA; (3) page 4, lines 3-12 of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ MSA; and (4) Paragraphs 18 and 19 of Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Opposition to Defendants’ MSA. All of those documents were filed on June 30, 2021. CEP asserts that it would suffer competitive harm if those records and references were made public because they contain confidential business information. (Shin Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) CEP also asserts that its sealing request is narrowly tailored because it only applies to a few documents and limited portions of CEP’s opposition papers. (Shin Decl. ¶ 5.)

Based on CEP’s motion and the accompanying declaration of its counsel, the court finds that (1) there exists an overring interest not to disclose the documents and references that overcomes the right of public access to the records listed above, which contain confidential business information that would pose a competitive harm to CEP if disclosed, (2) the overring interest supports sealing the records to protect CEP’s ability to remain competitive in the marketplace, (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the records are not sealed, (4) the proposing sealing is narrowly tailored, and (5) no less restrictive means exists to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

  1. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court makes the following orders.

The court grants plaintiff CEP America-California’s Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication, Portions of Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts, and Exhibits to the Declaration of Jonathan Shin.

The following filed documents are ordered sealed:

  1. Exhibit A to Declaration of Jonathan Shin in Support of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed June 30, 2021;

  2. Exhibit B to Declaration of Jonathan Shin in Support of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed June 30, 2021;

  3. Page 4, lines 3-12 of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed June 30, 2021; and

  4. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed June 30, 2021.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e), the court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the records ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the records as sealed by this order on July 30, 2021.

The court further orders that no persons other than the court are authorized to inspect the sealed records.

The court orders plaintiff CEP America-California to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2021

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court

'


Case Number: ****9353    Hearing Date: March 17, 2021    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – central District

Department 53

cep america-california ;

Plaintiff,

vs.

heritage provider network, inc. , et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

****9353

Hearing Date:

March 17, 2021

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

motion to seal Exhibit b to, and limited portions of defendant’s reply, filed in support of defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide further responses to requests for production, set two

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff CEP America-California

RESPONDING PARTIES: n/a

Motion to Seal Exhibit B to, and Limited Portions of Defendant’s Reply, Filed in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).) If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

Discussion

Plaintiff CEP America-California (“CEP”) moves to seal (1) Exhibit B to the Supplemental Declaration of Paul M. Torres, filed January 10, 2021 in support of defendant Heritage Provider Network, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) reply brief for Defendant’s motion to compel CEP to provide further responses to Defendant’s Request for Production, Set Two, filed January 5, 2021, and (2) pages 5:29-6:9 of Defendants’ reply brief, filed January 10, 2021 in support of Defendant’s motion to compel CEP to provide further responses to Defendant’s Request for Production, Set Two, filed January 5, 2021.

Defendant filed a redacted version of its reply brief and also lodged Exhibit B to the Supplemental Declaration of Paul M. Torres conditionally under seal with the court on January 10, 2021. CEP makes this motion on the grounds that Exhibit B and the portions of Defendant’s reply brief contain or describe in detail confidential business information that CEP has designated as confidential pursuant to a stipulated protective order between the parties. (Siegel Decl., filed February 18, 2021, ¶ 3.) Exhibit B to the Supplemental Declaration of Paul M. Torres includes portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Phillip Piccinini, and the deposition transcript contains sensitive details regarding contractual agreements between CEP and hospitals, as well as particulars regarding CEP’s business operations. Pages 5:29-6:9 of Defendant’s reply brief contain sensitive details regarding a contractual provision between CEP and a hospital, as well as details regarding CEP’s confidential business operations with hospitals.

The court finds that (1) there exists an overriding interest not to disclose the documents and references that overcomes the right of public access to the records listed above, which contain confidential business information that would pose a competitive harm to CEP if disclosed, (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record to protect CEP’s ability to remain competitive in the marketplace, (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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court makes the following orders.

The court grants plaintiff CEP America-California’s Motion to Seal Exhibit B to, and Limited Portions of Defendant’s Reply, Filed in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two.

The following filed documents are ordered sealed:

  1. Exhibit B to the Supplemental Declaration of Paul M. Torres, filed January 10, 2021;

  2. The following portions of defendant Heritage Provider Network, Inc.’s reply brief, filed January 10, 2021: pages 5:29-6:9.

The court accepts for filing the redacted versions of Defendant’s reply brief and the document attached as Exhibit B to the Supplemental Declaration of Paul M. Torres, filed January 10, 2021 in support of Defendant’s reply brief in support of Defendant’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, filed January 5, 2021.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e), the court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the records ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the records as sealed by this order on March 17, 2021.

The court further orders that no persons other than the court are authorized to inspect the sealed records.

The court orders plaintiff CEP America-California to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2021

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****9353    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – central District

Department 53

cep america-california ;

Plaintiff,

vs.

heritage provider network, inc. , et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

****9353

Hearing Date:

July 15, 2020

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

(1) motion to seal exhibits A-C, E, and F to Defendants’ appendix of exhibits in support of defendants’ motions in limine nos. 1-8, and portions of defendants’ motion in limine no. 1;

(2) motion to seal portions of plaintiff’s oppositions to defendants’ motions in limine nos. 1-8 and exhibits;

(3) motion to seal portions of defendants’ oppositions to plaintiff’s motions in limine #1-7 and exhibits in support of oppositions

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff CEP America-California

RESPONDING PARTIES: n/a

  1. Motion to Seal Exhibits A-C, E, and F to Defendants’ Appendix of Exhibits In Support of Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8, and Portions of Defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 1;

  2. Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8 and Exhibits;

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Heritage Provider Network, Inc., Regal Medical Group, Inc., Lakeside Medical Group, Inc., Oasis Independent Medical Associates, Inc., Desert Medical Group, Inc., High Desert Medical Corporation, a Medical Group, Affiliated Doctors of Orange County Medical Group, Bakersfield Family Medical Group, Inc., Sierra Medical Group, Inc., and Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES: n/a

  1. Motion to Seal Portions of Defendants’ Oppositions to Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine #1-7 and Exhibits In Support of Oppositions.

The court considered the moving papers on all three motions. Plaintiff CEP America-California filed a notice of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).) If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

motion to seal exhibits A-C, E, and F to Defendants’ appendix of exhibits in support of defendants’ motions in limine nos. 1-8, and portions of defendants’ motion in limine no. 1

Plaintiff CEP America-California (“CEP”) moves to seal the following documents in defendants Heritage Provider Network, Inc., Regal Medical Group, Inc., Lakeside Medical Group, Inc., Oasis Independent Medical Associates, Inc., Desert Medical Group, Inc., High Desert Medical Corporation, a Medical Group, Affiliated Doctors of Orange County Medical Group, Bakersfield Family Medical Group, Inc., Sierra Medical Group, Inc., and Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8, and portions of Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1, filed February 20, 2020:

  1. Exhibit A to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  2. Exhibit B to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  3. Exhibit C to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  4. Exhibit E to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  5. Exhibit F to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 (To Exclude the Expert Testimony of Chris Fritz), page 5, line 5, and page 10, line 10.

Defendants filed a proposed redacted version of their Appendix of Exhibits In Support of Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8 on February 20, 2020. (Appendix of Exhibits In Support of Defendants’ Motions In Limine One Through Eight, filed February 20, 2020.) CEP makes this motion on the grounds that the above documents contain or describe in detail a document, contract, or communication that CEP has designated as “confidential,” pursuant to a protective order between the parties. (Siegel Decl., ¶ 4)

The court finds that (1) there exists an overriding interest not to disclose the documents and references that overcomes the right of public access to the records listed above, which contain binding contractual agreements not to disclose, information that would pose a competitive harm to CEP if disclosed, and information designated by defendants as confidential, (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record to protect CEP’s ability to remain competitive in the marketplace, (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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

motion to seal portions of plaintiff’s oppositions to defendants’ motions in limine nos. 1-8 and exhibits

DISCUSSION

CEP moves to seal the following documents in CEP’s oppositions, filed March 2, 2020, to Defendants’ motions in limine Nos. 1-8, filed February 20, 2020:

  1. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jennifer L. Siegel in Support of CEP’s Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8;

  2. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1, page 5, lines 17, 21-23, 24-5, and page 9, lines 12-14;

  3. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2, page 3, lines 25-27;

  4. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4, page 1, lines 12-13, 15-17, 21-25;

  5. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6, page 1, lines 911, 15-16, 25, 28, and page 2, line 1;

  6. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8, page 3, lines 18-19.

CEP filed proposed redacted versions of the above-listed documents. (Declaration of Jennifer L. Siegel In Support of Plaintiff CEP America-California’s Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8, Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, each filed March 2, 2020.) CEP makes this motion on the grounds that the above documents contain the exact language from both Defendants’ expert’s reports and CEP’s expert’s reports, both of which contain sensitive. Confidential, and proprietary rate information and have been designated by the parties as “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” (Siegel Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

The court finds that (1) there exists an overriding interest not to disclose the portions of experts’ reports that overcomes the right of public access to the records listed above, which contain information that would pose a competitive harm to CEP if disclosed, and information designated by the parties as confidential, (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record to protect CEP’s ability to remain competitive in the marketplace, (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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

motion to seal portions of Defendants’ oppositions to plaintiff’s motions in limine nos. 1-7 and exhibits

Defendants move to seal the following documents in Defendants’ oppositions, filed March 2, 2020, to CEP’s motions in limine Nos. 1-7, filed February 20, 2020:

  1. Exhibit 1 to the Omnibus Declaration of Michael M. Amir in Support of Defendants’ Oppositions to CEP’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1-7;

  2. Exhibit 2 to the Omnibus Declaration of Michael M. Amir in Support of Defendants’ Oppositions to CEP’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1-7;

  3. Exhibit 3 to the Omnibus Declaration of Michael M. Amir in Support of Defendants’ Oppositions to CEP’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1-7;

  4. Defendants’ Opposition to CEP’s Motion In Limine No. 1, page 3, lines 13-28;

  5. Defendants Opposition to CEP’s Motion In Limine No. 7, page 18, lines 8-11, 26-27.

Defendants filed proposed redacted versions of the above-listed documents. (Omnibus Declaration of Michael M. Amir In Support of Defendants’ Oppositions to Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Nos. 1-7, Defendants’ Oppositions to Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1 and 7, each filed March 2, 2020.) Defendants make this motion on the grounds that the above documents contain or reference protected financial information of the parties and expert testimony that the parties have designated as “confidential,” pursuant to a protective order between the parties. (Amir Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

The court finds that (1) there exists an overriding interest not to disclose the portions of experts’ testimony and documents that overcomes the right of public access to the records listed above, which contain sensitive financial information designated by the parties as confidential, (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record to maintain the confidentiality of such protected information, (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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court makes the following orders.

First, the court grants plaintiff CEP America-California’s Motion To Seal Exhibits A-C, E, And F To Defendants’ Appendix Of Exhibits In Support Of Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8, And Portions Of Defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 1.

The following filed documents are ordered sealed:

  1. Exhibit A to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  2. Exhibit B to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  3. Exhibit C to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  4. Exhibit E to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  5. Exhibit F to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8;

  6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 (To Exclude the Expert Testimony of Chris Fritz), page 5, line 5, and page 10, line 10.

The court accepts for filing the redacted versions of the documents attached as Exhibits A, B, C, E, and F to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1-8, filed February 20, 2020. The court accepts for filing the redacted version of Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1, filed February 20, 2020.

Second, the court grants plaintiff CEP America-California’s Motion To Seal Portions Of Plaintiff’s Oppositions To Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8 And Exhibits.

The following filed documents are ordered sealed:

  1. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jennifer L. Siegel in Support of CEP’s Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8;

  2. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1, page 5, lines 17, 21-23, 24-5, and page 9, lines 12-14;

  3. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2, page 3, lines 25-27;

  4. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4, page 1, lines 12-13, 15-17, 21-25;

  5. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6, page 1, lines 911, 15-16, 25, 28, and page 2, line 1;

  6. Limited portions of CEP’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8, page 3, lines 18-19.

The court accepts for filing the redacted version of the document attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jennifer L. Siegel in Support of CEP’s Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions In Limine Nos. 1-8, filed March 2, 2020. The court accepts for filing the redacted versions of CEP’s Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, each filed March 2, 2020.

Third, the court grants defendants Heritage Provider Network, Inc., Regal Medical Group, Inc., Lakeside Medical Group, Inc., Oasis Independent Medical Associates, Inc., Desert Medical Group, Inc., High Desert Medical Corporation, a Medical Group, Affiliated Doctors of Orange County Medical Group, Bakersfield Family Medical Group, Inc., Sierra Medical Group, Inc., and Coastal Communities Medical Group, Inc.’s Motion To Seal Portions Of Defendants’ Oppositions To Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1-7 And Exhibits.

The following filed documents are ordered sealed:

  1. Exhibit 1 to the Omnibus Declaration of Michael M. Amir in Support of Defendants’ Oppositions to CEP’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1-7;

  2. Exhibit 2 to the Omnibus Declaration of Michael M. Amir in Support of Defendants’ Oppositions to CEP’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1-7;

  3. Exhibit 3 to the Omnibus Declaration of Michael M. Amir in Support of Defendants’ Oppositions to CEP’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1-7;

  4. Defendants’ Opposition to CEP’s Motion In Limine No. 1, page 3, lines 13-28;

  5. Defendants Opposition to CEP’s Motion In Limine No. 7, page 18, lines 8-11, 26-27.

The court accepts for filing the redacted versions of the documents attached as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to the Omnibus Declaration of Michael Amir, filed March 2, 2020. The court accepts for filing the redacted versions of Defendants’ Oppositions to CEP’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 7, each filed March 2, 2020.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e), the court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the records ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the records as sealed by this this order on July 15, 2020.

The court further orders that no persons other than the court are authorized to inspect the sealed records.

The court orders plaintiff CEP America-California to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2020

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Bakersfield Family Medical Group Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where Desert Medical Group Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where Sierra Medical Group, Inc. is a litigant