*1 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Sealed Fourth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 195) and Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 197). The matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Sealed Motion to Compel (ECF No. 195) is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 197) is GRANTED.

This discovery dispute arises out of Plaintiff's fourth motion to compel. ECF No. 195. In its prior Order on Plaintiff's third motion to compel, the Court advised the parties that future motion practice over the scope of discoverable issues or production of discoverable materials would be subject to a searching judicial inquiry. See ECF No. 189 at 4.

Plaintiff seeks the production of the complete audit trail of Plaintiff's medical records at Providence Hospital. ECF No. 195 at 2, ¶ 1. On October 13, 2021, in response to Plaintiff's request for the production of this audit trail, Defendant Providence stated that it believed the request to be irrelevant, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and overly vague. Id. at 3-4. Defendant further invoked attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, peer review privilege, and quality improvement privilege. Id. at 4. Nevertheless, Defendant produced a portion of the audit trail “with significant redactions.” Id.

Plaintiff did not object to Defendant's production of the audit trail until April 2022, at which point Plaintiff sent a letter asserting that the audit trail was not privileged. ECF No. 195 at 5; 205 at 2. Then, for two years, Plaintiff did not raise the issue again. ECF No. 205 at 2. In January and February 2024, Plaintiff sent several emails asking Defendant to produce the complete audit trail. ECF No. 195 at 5. In early March, the parties conferred several times. Id. at 5-6. On March 8, 2024, Defendant agreed to produce the audit trail of Defendant Jason Dreyer's access to Plaintiff's medical records. Id. at 6.

The close of discovery is April 22, 2024, and the trial is scheduled to begin on June 3, 2024. ECF No. 124. The Court is mindful of these deadlines and in receipt of Defendant's response. Accordingly, the motion to expedite consideration of the motion to compel is granted.

Plaintiff's counsel represents that they have “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer” with Defense counsel before filing this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); see also L.Civ.R. 37. Defendant's recitation of the facts confirms that the parties met and attempted to resolve this issue. ECF No. 205 at 2. The Court therefore accepts that the parties have satisfied Rule 37(a)(1)’s meet-and-confer requirement.

Plaintiff represents that federal law entitles her to the entire, unredacted audit trail of her Providence medical records. Plaintiff discusses 45 C.F.R. § 170.299, which incorporates by reference ASTM International E2147-18. See Office of the Federal Register, Incorporation by Reference [IBR] Handbook, National Archives and Records Administration (June 2023, ed. rev. 8/28/2023), https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ibr-chi.pdf, at 6 (“The legal effect of IBR is that the referenced material is treated as if it were published in the Federal Register and the CFR. When incorporated by reference, this material has the force and effect of law, just like all regulations published in the Federal Register and CFR.”). In relevant part, E2147-18 provides:

ECF No. 196-2 at 2, ¶¶ 3.1.2, 3.1.2.1. E2147-18 further reads:

Id. at 4, ¶ 4.3 (emphasis added).

For present purposes only, the Court will accept Plaintiff's contention that E2147-18 requires Providence to produce an access record/audit trail upon a patient's request, although it is fairly debatable whether access “by attorneys, risk management, or similar individuals or entities” includes access by healthcare employees like Dr. Dreyer. Id. Nevertheless, that does not entitle Plaintiff to the production of the entire audit log.

Rule 26(b)(1) places reasonable limitations on the scope of discovery. Specifically, that language dictates:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added).

Defendant points out that, prior to the events in question, Plaintiff was a Providence patient for twenty years. Plaintiff has failed to articulate how an audit trail spanning twenty years—if such a thing even exists—is relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. Moreover, it is not apparent how any healthcare worker's access to Plaintiff's medical record other than Defendant Dreyer's is relevant. Indeed, it is Defendant Dreyer's alleged misconduct and Defendant Providence's alleged failure to adequately supervise him which lays the foundation for this action. See ECF No. 24 at 6-11. The Court will not authorize a fishing expedition disguised as a discovery request. Webb v. Trader Joe's Company, 999 F.3d 1196, 1204 (9th Cir. 2021). Since it appears Defendant has already produced a record of Defendant Dreyer's access, nothing further is required at this time. ECF Nos. 195 at 2, ¶ 4; 206 at 2, ¶ 5.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: