LA County ordered to produce Porter Ranch health surveys

LOS ANGELES -- A judge Monday ordered the production of names and addresses of those surveyed about the health effects from the 2015 gas blowout at Porter Ranch -- information plaintiffs believe will shed light on the emission of toxic chemicals but which the county's attorney said are confidential under the law.

Plaintiffs representing those affected by the gas leak subpoenaed the county Department of Public Health for the information, claiming victims don't know where cancer-causing chemicals exist. The department sought to block the disclosure, producing only heavily-redacted versions, saying they were subject to confidentiality under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability ACT. The department also refused to produce the names of employees who suffered health effects.

In issuing her ruling, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl said a litigation interest outweighed HIPPA laws as long as privacy interests were balanced.

During arguments, Jason H. Tokoro, a Miller Barondess LLP attorney representing the health department, said those surveyed were told their contact information would not be disclosed to anyone other than his client.

"The court's tentative ruling forces the department of public health to break that promise. That is not only harmful to residents but also harmful to the department of public health. If county residents knew their information could be disclosed to litigants or lawyers, they might not participate or be upfront because of fear they might be bought into a proceeding they don't want to be part to," Tokoro told Kuhl.

In 2018, the county was part of a $119.5 million settlement with SoCalGas.

The judge later queried the attorney about the timeline for producing the information.

"This database no longer exists. We would have to restart the database," said Tokoro.

"You have them in hard copies stacked up someplace?" asked Kuhl.

"We do not," said Tokoro.

When asked if his client had hard copies somewhere, Tokoro said he didn't know.

The judge ordered the documents and logs to be produced in two weeks and for the release of employee names by Jan. 10.

R. Rex Parris of the Parris Law Firm, who represents plaintiffs, said the documents also include emails between the department and SoCalGas over chemical testing. Parris believes communications will show that on the same day a SoCalGas consultant learned residents tested for high levels of toxic chemicals, such as benzene, the department sent out a health directive not to test for it.

"Plaintiffs are not alleging any agreement between DPH and SoCalGas to ask doctors to suppress an analysis of the medical impact. But the emerging patterns warrant the production and inspection of the log of all documents withheld by DPH," according to plaintiffs' reply to the department's opposition to produce documents.

Parris asked Kuhl if those communications were part of the request, but she said the issue hadn't been raised.

Tokoro said plaintiffs have made "baseless accusations" that the department has not been looking out for residents' health and that they are in cahoots with SoCalGas.

In her tentative ruling, which she made final in court, Kuhl wrote, "Balancing the privacy interest against the countervailing need for the information in the litigation, the court finds that the interests of the private plaintiffs in understanding the potential health effects of the consequences of the gas well blowout at various times and geographic locations is central to the subject of this litigation."

"Without knowing the address of the survey respondent, the significance of the information provided cannot be understood in a geographic context," Kuhl ruled.

Kuhl said requirements were met because a qualified protective order, in which health information is only released for litigation purposes, was issued in the case.

She found a limited invasion of privacy because minimal health information was disclosed and said none of it was linked to any one person. She pointed to the California Supreme Court's guidance on personal information sought in litigation, which said the entity seeking protection of the information must show the persons providing the information have a "legally protected privacy interest," a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the invasion of privacy would be "serious" and breach "social norms." Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360, 370 (2007)

Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1, 37 (1994).

A trial is set for this summer. Southern California Gas Leak cases, JCCP 4861 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 2, 2016).