Beltran v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE, et al., No. 1:23-cv-01106-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 LORI BELTRAN, et al., No. 2:23-cv-01670-TLN-CKD 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, et al., 21 Defendants. 22 JUDITH HARRILL, No. 2:23-cv-01672-TLN-CKD 23 Plaintiff, 24 v. 25 EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., ORDER 26 Defendants. 27 28 1 This matter is before the Court on three Motions to Consolidate filed by Defendants in 2 Case No. 1:23-cv-01106-TLN-CKD, (the “Doe case”) (ECF No. 28), Case No. 2:23-cv-01670- 3 TLN-CKD (the “Beltran case”) (ECF No. 36), and Case No. 2:23-cv-01672-TLN-CKD (the 4 “Harrill case”) (ECF No. 34). Plaintiffs filed non-oppositions in Beltran (ECF No. 37) and 5 Harrill (ECF No. 35). Plaintiffs filed an opposition in Doe (ECF No. 33), and Defendants filed a 6 reply (ECF No. 35). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motions. 7 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 8 The above-captioned cases are putative class actions against Defendant Tenet Healthcare 9 Corporation (“Tenet”) and various Tenet-related entities. Plaintiffs in all three cases allege 10 claims related to the unlawful transmission of their private health information and personal 11 identifying information through online tracking software on certain Tenet websites. In the Doe 12 case, Plaintiffs assert claims based on the Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (“Doctors 13 Medical”) website, the Desert Regional Medical Center website, and the Twin Cities Community 14 Hospital website. (Case No. 1:23-cv-01106, ECF No. 19.) In the Beltran case, Plaintiffs assert 15 claims based on the Doctors Medical website. (Case No. 2:23-cv-01670, ECF No. 1.) In the 16 Harrill case, Plaintiffs assert claims based on the Emanuel Medical Center website. (Case No. 17 2:23-cv-01672, ECF No. 1.) The Court ordered the cases related on October 3, 2023, and 18 Defendants in each case filed the instant motions to consolidate on November 30, 2023.1 (Case 19 No. 1:23-cv-01106, ECF Nos. 17, 28.) 20 II. STANDARD OF LAW 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 42 states, “If actions before the court involve a 22 common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at 23 issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary 24 cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to 25 consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of 26 Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether to consolidate actions, the court 27 1 The related case orders and motions to consolidate in all three cases are identical. 28 1 weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and 2 prejudice caused by consolidation.” Quair v. Thomas, No. 1:21-cv-01397-JLT-SKO, 2022 WL 3 675754, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2022) (citation omitted). 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 Defendants request the Court: (1) consolidate the claims arising out of the visits to the 6 Doctors Medical website in the Doe case and the Beltran case for all purposes pursuant to Rule 7 42(a)(2) and order Plaintiffs in those cases to file a consolidated class action complaint; and (2) 8 consolidate the claims and proposed classes arising out of visits to the other Tenet entities’ 9 websites as alleged in the Doe and Harrill cases (i.e. Desert Regional Medical Center, Twin 10 Cities Community Hospital, and Emanuel Medical Center) for the purposes of discovery and 11 scheduling pursuant to Rule 42(a)(3).2 (Case No. 1:23-cv-01106, ECF No. 28.) 12 Plaintiffs in the Doe case (“Doe Plaintiffs”) partially oppose the motion to consolidate. 13 (ECF No. 33.) Doe Plaintiffs do not oppose coordination of discovery and scheduling in the 14 related actions but do oppose consolidation of Doe and Beltran for all purposes. (Id. at 2.) While 15 Doe Plaintiffs acknowledge Doe and Beltran have significant legal and factual overlap, Doe 16 Plaintiffs argue full consolidation is inappropriate because the cases involve different parties, 17 different claims, and different proposed classes. (Id.) 18 The Court agrees with Doe Plaintiffs for several reasons. First, the Doe case is 19 significantly broader than the Beltran case. Doe Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of a 20 nationwide class, including patients of all Tenet Healthcare affiliates. (Case No. 1:23-cv-01106, 21 ECF No. 19.) In contrast, Plaintiffs in Beltran limit their proposed class to patients or prospective 22 patients who visited the website of a single hospital. (Case No. 2:23-cv-01670, ECF No. 1.) 23 Second, the Doe case includes two Defendants that are not named in Beltran — Twin Cities 24 Community Hospital, Inc. and Desert Regional Medical Center. (Id.) Third, Doe and Beltran 25 involve multiple distinct claims. As Defendants acknowledge, the Doe case asserts claims against 26 Tenet and Doctors Medical for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 27 2 Defendants did not move to consolidate the Harrill case for all purposes because it does 28 not involve a named plaintiff who visited the Doctors Medical website. (ECF No. 35 at 3.) 1 | California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, California’s 2 | Unfair Competition Law, and trespass to chattels, while the Beltran case asserts implied contract 3 | claims. (ECF No. 35 at 4.) Fourth, there are pending motions to dismiss in all three related 4 | actions. Based on the differences between the related actions, the Court believes consolidation 5 | would result in more confusion, inefficiency, and delay than resolving each motion to dismiss 6 || separately. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motions to fully consolidate the Doe 7 | and Beltran cases without prejudice. 8 In addition, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request to consolidate scheduling and 9 | discovery. The deadlines set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order are triggered once the last 10 | answer is filed. Once the last answer is filed in each case, the parties may file stipulations 11 | coordinating scheduling and discovery between the cases if they wish to do so. 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motions to Consolidate Case 14 | No. 1:23-cv-01106-TLN-CKD (ECF No. 28), Case No. 2:23-cv-01670-TLN-CKD (ECF No. 36), 15 and Case No. 2:23-cv-01672-TLN-CKD (ECF No. 34). Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the 16 || pending Motions to Dismiss in each respective case not later than fourteen (14) days from the 17 | electronic filing date of this Order, and Defendants’ replies shall be due fourteen (14) days 18 || thereafter. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 | Date: June 20, 2024 /) 22 \ | jf / 74 wn Vo MA 24 Troy L. Nuhlep ] United States District Judge 25 26 27 28