Court Should Deny Remand Request in Data Privacy Suit, Says Cedars-Sinai

The court should reject the plaintiff’s motion to remand (docket 2:23-cv-00870) a data privacy class action against Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to Los Angeles County Superior Court, said the healthcare facility’s opposition motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles.

In the complaint, patient "John Doe" alleged Cedars-Sinai shared patients’ sensitive and protected personal identifiable information with unrelated parties including Facebook, Google and Microsoft Bing without patients’ consent. Tracking code on the Cedars-Sinai website “diverted customers’ private information to outside entities for analytics and marketing purposes without adequate disclosure” or consent from customers, he alleged.

John Doe sued Cedars-Sinai for violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion in violation of California common law, breach of implied contract and covenant, negligence and violation of California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

Cedars-Sinai “improperly removed” the action to district court last month, “purportedly pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C.,” the plaintiff said in his first motion to remand. It said the healthcare system hasn’t met its burden of establishing that “its unlawful actions were taken pursuant to a federal officer’s directions or the required causal nexus between any federal officer’s directions” and plaintiff’s claims.

Cedars-Sinai wasn't acting on behalf of a federal officer in an agency relationship when it disclosed patient “John Doe’s” personal information to third parties, said the defendant’s opposition motion. It cited the Meaningful Use program, under which the U.S. has incentivized and directed healthcare providers to offer patients online access to their records and to optimize patient engagement with their medical data, including through patient portals.

Doe’s assertion that Cedars-Sinai wasn't acting as an agent of the government “misstates the legal standard," said the opposition motion. The pivotal question is whether the private entity’s alleged conduct involved an effort to assist or help carry out the tasks of the federal superior, it said: “That requirement is met here.”

Cedars-Sinai was at minimum assisting the federal government, as it received payment for compliance with the Meaningful Use program, the defendant said. “This payment relationship demonstrates how the federal government used private healthcare providers like Cedars-Sinai to fulfill a federal goal,” it said. In nearly identical cases, at least two district courts upheld removal under the federal officer removal statute, it said.