DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Two potential class action lawsuits filed against Sutter Health (updated)

Posted on November 23, 2011 by Dissent

It was only a matter of time, right? Darrell Smith reports:

Sutter Health is being sued for negligence and other allegations in the mid-October theft of a computer from Sutter Medical Foundation headquarters that held information on more than 4 million of its patients.

The class-action suit, filed Monday on behalf of plaintiff Karen Pardieck of Folsom in Sacramento Superior Court, alleges that the Sacramento-based health network was negligent in safeguarding its computers and data and then did not notify the millions of patients whose data went missing within the time required by state law. The suit seeks $1,000 for each member of the class and attorneys’ fees.

Read more on Sacramento Bee.

That was one of two lawsuits filed in the past two weeks. Another law firm issued a press release issued today by another law firm about a lawsuit they filed November 16 in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of a different plaintiff.

Both lawsuits mention notification within the time required by state law, but I don’t see where the state law actually specifies an exact deadline for notifying. One part of the statute says “immediately” upon discovery, but another part allows the entity needed time to determine the scope of the breach.  I’d be interested in reading that part of both lawsuits to see why they claim a one-month gap between discovery and notification violates California law.

[The preceding post was corrected to add the correct links.]

Update: The complaint filed in Sacramento Superior Court (Pardieck v. Sutter Health) is online, here. The first cause of action is alleged violation of California’s Confidential of Medical Information Act. The second cause of action relates to timeliness of notification and cites California Code 1798.82. I had checked into that section when trying to figure out what the complaint might cite about timeliness of notification, and had noted the confusion within that section. You can read the code here. Yes, Sutter knew quickly that there was an incident, but how long did it take to figure out its scope in terms of how many patients were affected, which patients were affected, and what kinds of data were involved for each patient? I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect any entity to immediately provide individual notice to everyone if they don’t yet know whose data – or which data – are involved.

Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← NJ: Four charged with stealing identities; two were DMV employees
Personal info from more than 500 patients on Web →

2 thoughts on “Two potential class action lawsuits filed against Sutter Health (updated)”

  1. Anonymous says:
    November 26, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    How does my family join in on the class action lawsuit?

    1. Anonymous says:
      November 26, 2011 at 4:12 pm

      If you view the press release, you’ll see info on how people can join that one. If you read the complaint on the other, you can see contact info for the plaintiff’s lawyer(s).

      There will be a slew of lawyers advertising for/recruiting people for potential class actions against Sutter. It is in the lawyers’ economic interest to get a lot of people. Do your due diligence and check out the lawyers’ track records on similar lawsuits before deciding who to sign on with.

      That said, understand that I am not recommending that you join a class action lawsuit. I’m just answering your question.

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Masimo Manufacturing Facilities Hit by Cyberattack
  • Education giant Pearson hit by cyberattack exposing customer data
  • Star Health hacker claims sending bullets, threats to top executives: Reports
  • Nova Scotia Power hit by cyberattack, critical infrastructure targeted, no outages reported
  • Georgia hospital defeats data-tracking lawsuit
  • 60K BTC Wallets Tied to LockBit Ransomware Gang Leaked
  • UK: Legal Aid Agency hit by cyber security incident
  • Public notice for individuals affected by an information security breach in the Social Services, Health Care and Rescue Services Division of Helsinki
  • PowerSchool paid a hacker’s extortion demand, but now school district clients are being extorted anyway (3)
  • Defending Against UNC3944: Cybercrime Hardening Guidance from the Frontlines

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech
  • Florida bill requiring encryption backdoors for social media accounts has failed
  • Apple Siri Eavesdropping Payout Deadline Confirmed—How To Make A Claim
  • Privacy matters to Canadians – Privacy Commissioner of Canada marks Privacy Awareness Week with release of latest survey results
  • Missouri Clinic Must Give State AG Minor Trans Care Information
  • Georgia hospital defeats data-tracking lawsuit
  • No Postal Service Data Sharing to Deport Immigrants

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.