The case in the trial court is still stayed, the appeal is ongoing. The court decided to hear the petition on January 17, 2013. In the appeal, Sutter is arguing that it is cannot be held responsible for the theft of a Sutter computer containing the personal information for millions of patients. Plaintiffs are confident that the appeal will be decided in favor of the Sutter patients whose information was compromised, and that the case will continue to proceed at the trial court.
Case is Stayed
Feburary 15, 2013 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
Sutter's Demurrer Overruled
October 12, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
Judge De Alba overruled in its entirety Defendants Sutter Medical Foundation’s and Sutter Connect, LLC dba Sutter Physician Services’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Master Class Action Complaint, finding that Plaintiffs’ Complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Plaintiffs’ case will proceed accordingly.
Plaintiffs Intend to Amend the Complaint
October 12, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
The motion to strike filed by Defendants Sutter Medical Foundation’s and Sutter Connect, LLC dba Sutter Physician Services’ as to identified parts of the Plaintiffs’ Master Class Action Complaint addressing class action claims representation and equitable remedies was denied in part and granted in part with leave to amend to the complaint. Plaintiffs intend to amend the complaint and file a First Amended Master Class Action Complaint on or before November 2, 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipates that the Court will lift the stay on discovery after that pleading is filed and the case is at issue. However, a formal order lifting the stay on discovery has not yet been issued.
October 5, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
Judge De Alba conducted the initial Case Management Conference in this action. He confirmed the appointments of Mr. Robert Buccola of Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, LLP, Mr. C. Brooks Cutter of Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, and Mr. Michael Ram of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski as co-lead counsel in this coordinated case. Judge De Alba also confirmed the appointment of Mr. Cutter as liaison counsel for all purposes.
Class Action Complaint filed in Sacramento
July 19, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
On May 4th Judge Abbot recused himself from hearing the coordinated cases and Plaintiffs in all of the coordinated cases requested that the cases be reassigned to another judge in Sacramento County. The cases were assigned to Judge Raymond W. Cadei. Judge Cadei was then the subject of a CCP 170 preemptory challenge from one of the plaintiff firms. The Defendants “Sutter” continue to try to have the cases moved to San Francisco. All three co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs are located in Sacramento and Judge Abbot, prior to his recusal, found seven separate reasons for coordinating these cases in Sacramento.
A Master Class Action Complaint has been filed in Sacramento county and Sutter has sought and been granted an extension to file their answer five days after a new judge is assigned.
Judge found to be a "Potential Plaintiff"
May 16, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
Earlier this week Judge David Abbott, who had been assigned to handle the Sutter Medical Information Coordinated Cases, was informed by Sutter that he was one of the persons whose information was on the stolen computer. As such, Judge Abbott recused himself from presiding in the Sutter case because he is a “potential plaintiff”. The Defendant Sutter Health, et al. has asked for a replacement trial judge and requested, again, that the case be moved to the Complex Civil Litigation Department in San Francisco where there is little prospect that a San Francisco judge would be a victim of the Sutter breach and because Defense Counsel’s offices are in San Francisco.
Plaintiff’s lead counsel has opposed the motion and made compelling arguments why the coordinated cases should remain in Sacramento, including (1) a majority of the included actions, 8 of 13, have been filed in Sacramento; (2) the litigation is at its inception and is not in an advanced stage in any particular court; (3) the acts and omissions alleged in the complaints occurred in Sacramento County; (4) most, if not all, relevant witnesses and documents are located in Sacramento and the headquarters of Defendant Sutter Health are located in Sacramento; (5) Sacramento is the forum most convenient to the parties, witnesses and counsel; (6) Sacramento is an easily accessible travel location with adequate accommodations; and (7) efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources will be accomplished in Sacramento.
A decision regarding venue of the matter will be forthcoming shortly.
Co-Lead Counsel for Coordinated Case
& Liaison Counsel
April 24, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
Yesterday the Honorable Judge David Abbott appointed Robert Buccola of Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, C. Brooks Cutter of Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, and Michael Ram of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski as co-lead counsel in this coordinated case against Sutter in the Sacramento Superior Court Case No. JCCP No. 4698, which has been titled SUTTER MEDICAL INFORMATION CASES. C. Brooks Cutter will also act as liaison counsel for all purposes. The Plaintiffs agreed to file one Master Complaint , and will return to court on June 8th for a Case Management Conference.Consumers who have received a data breach notification letter are four times more likely than others to be the victim of identity theft, according to a survey released this week by Javelin Strategy and Research.
Data breach alerts linked to increased risk of ID theft Article by Angela Moscaritolo
Febuary 29, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
Consumers who have received a data breach notification letter are four times more likely than others to be the victim of identity theft, according to a survey released this week by Javelin Strategy and Research.
Approximately 11 percent of U.S. consumers have received a data breach notification letter in the past 12 months with a third of the breaches involving Social Security numbers and 15 percent involving ATM PINs, according to Javelin's third annual survey of nearly 5,000 U.S. consumers, released Tuesday.
Of those who have received a data breach notification letter in the past year, 19.5 percent said they were the victims of fraud associated with identity theft, compared to 4.3 percent who have not received a notification but were victimized.
Coordination Motion Judge Assigned
Febuary 2, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
Following a motion to coordinate eleven pending cases brought as class actions arising from the Sutter data breach, THE HONORABLE DAVID W. ABBOTT of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, has been assigned to sit as coordination motion judge in the Sutter Medical Information cases. On February 17, 2012 the Petition for Coordination will be heard by Judge Abbot in Sacramento.
Judge Abbott will determine whether the actions are complex, and if so, whether coordination of the actions is appropriate. The coordination motion judge is asked to recommend the appropriate court site for assignment of the coordination trial judge.
Case Assigned to Coordination Judge
January 3, 2012 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
The Chair of the Judicial Council of California entered an Order assigning a coordination motion judge.
Due to the fact that there were eleven cases brought as class actions arising from the same alleged originating occurrence against Sutter, the Defendants asked that proceedings be stayed until a coordination hearing could take place. On January 12, 2012 Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl of the Sacramento Superior Court assigned Judge David W. Abbot the task of assigning a coordination motion judge.
Class Action Lawsuit Initiated
November 21, 2011 | Posted by Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora
The class action lawsuit against Sutter Medical Foundation is stemming from their computer theft incident. Our goal is to get Healthcare providers and specifically Sutter in this case, to treat personally identifiable health information with the due care it deserves and which the law requires.
We initiated the class action with the class initially identified as current California residents who were notified by letter. Typically, once a class action has been confirmed by the court, the “class” includes all qualified potential claimants.