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

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

CEP AMERICA

CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL

CEP AMERICA-CALIFORNIA

CALIF. EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP

Defendants and Respondents

COASTAL COMMUNITIES MEDICAL GROUP INC.

DESERT MEDICAL GROUP INC.

AFFILIATED DOCTORS OF ORANGE COUNTY -

LAKESIDE MEDICAL GROUP INC.

HIGH DESERT MEDICAL CORPORATION

HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK INC.

OASIS INDEPENDENT MEDICAL ASSOCIATES INC

REGAL MEDICAL GROUP INC.

DOES 1 - 100

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 and Petitioner Attorneys

SOLOMON GLENN E.

GORDON BRIDGET ANN

SIEGEL JENNIFER LAUREN

TOOCH DARON LAEL

Defendant Attorneys

KENDALL JAMIE OLIVIA

VU LLOYD HONG QUAN

MOON KIRK LEONARD

AMIR MICHAEL M

Not Classified By Court Attorney

SANDLER JONATHAN CHARLES

 

Court Documents

Declaration

6/5/2019: Declaration

Separate Statement

6/5/2019: Separate Statement

Stipulation and Order

6/7/2019: Stipulation and Order

Declaration

6/7/2019: Declaration

Notice of Ruling

6/11/2019: Notice of Ruling

Response

7/2/2019: Response

Joinder to Motion

7/3/2019: Joinder to Motion

Notice of Lodging

7/5/2019: Notice of Lodging

Minute Order

7/16/2019: Minute Order

Order

7/25/2019: Order

Minute Order

8/6/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Service

3/12/2018: Proof of Service

Proof of Service

3/19/2018: Proof of Service

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

4/3/2018: DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

NOTICE OF RUUNG ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

4/20/2018: NOTICE OF RUUNG ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER, AND/OR STAY OF ORDER PENDING WRIT REVIEW; ETC

4/26/2018: DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER, AND/OR STAY OF ORDER PENDING WRIT REVIEW; ETC

Minute Order

5/31/2018: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/19/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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

    Read MoreRead 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 MoreRead 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 MoreRead 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 MoreRead 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 MoreRead 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 MoreRead 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 MoreRead 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 MoreRead 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 MoreRead 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 MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead 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 MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT/QUA NTUM MERUIT; ETC

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC649353    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.:

BC649353

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