R.K. et al v. Cedar Springs Hospital, Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell
Civil Action No. 25–cv–01552–WJM–MDB
R.K., by and through his Special Conservator Eric J.
Kelly, M.K., and J.M.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CEDAR SPRINGS HOSPITAL, INC, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time
to Provide Complete Privilege Log and Affidavit (“Extension of Time Motion”) (Doc. No. 101),
and the Joint Motion for Second Amended Protective Order (“Protective Order Motion”) (Doc.
No. 97.) These motions were filed in the context of the parties’ discovery disputes and requests
for clarification, set forth in the Joint Status Report (Doc. No. 99), regarding the Court’s
discovery orders. (Doc. No. 94.) Before addressing these motions, the Court pauses to clarify
certain orders set forth in Doc. No. 94.
1. 	On or before December 16, 2025,1 Defendant was to produce the following:
1 The parties correctly note that Doc. No. 94 includes an erroneous deadline of December 11,
2025, to disclose redacted documents over which Defendant claimed HIPAA protection. (Doc.
No. 94 at 2; Doc. No. 99 at 2-3.) As the hearing transcript reflects, the December 11, 2025
deadline applied to certain unredacted staff and training documents. (Doc. No. 100 at 116.)
These appear to have been timely disclosed. (Doc. No. 99 at 3.) Separately, the Court ordered
Defendant to disclose preliminarily redacted HIPAA-implicated documents and supplement its
Rule 26(a) disclosures by December 16, 2025. (Doc. No. 100 at 130:16-23; Doc. No. 94 at 2.)
Case No. 1:25-cv-01552-WJM-MDB Document 103 filed 01/02/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
a. 	All documents which Defendant identified as responsive in the initial round
of preliminary discovery, but withheld on the basis of HIPAA protections.
Importantly, the Court ordered the complete and unredacted production of these
documents, as well as production of the subject video footage (which is also being
withheld on the basis of HIPAA protections). However, the Court sua sponte
stayed the effect of this order to give Defendant an opportunity to lodge its
forthcoming objection. In the meantime, and in an effort to move matters along,
Defendant was ordered to produce the documents (not the video) in redacted
form.
In the Joint Status Report, Defendant makes the following statement:
At the hearing Plaintiffs’ Counsel requested that all materials be produced
redacted prior to the resolution of the Defendant’s objection to the Court’s
discovery order. Following this request there was discussion regarding costs
associated with redaction of materials that Plaintiff’s Counsel ultimately seeks be
produced unredacted. While Defendant’s Counsel intends to object to the
discovery order and is mindful of client costs, Defendant’s Counsel agreed, and
the Court ordered, that Defendant would limitedly produce only the redacted
employee files of the staff in the Treehouse Unit on December 16, 2025 in an
effort to show good faith and a desire to move forward in this matter, as well as
because Defendant had already agreed to produce the employee files as
supplemental disclosures, with the only debate being whether or not portions of it
would be redacted.
(Doc. No. 99 at 6.) This is an inaccurate statement of what transpired during the
hearing and appears to be an attempt to recast narrow cost concerns as broad costs
concerns. When defense counsel raised cost concerns, she expressly raised them
in connection with the redaction of video footage and disclaimed cost concerns
associated with the redaction of documents. (See Doc. No. 100 at 127:22-128:7
(“I understand that. I guess I don’t necessarily have a problem with the redaction
of the documents. It's the video that would be a significant expense because we
Case No. 1:25-cv-01552-WJM-MDB Document 103 filed 01/02/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
need to hire a third-party contractor to do that. So that’s the one caveat I guess I
have or concern in terms of costs. I haven't gotten a final quote on that. We were
pending the Court’s ruling to see if we need to proceed with that or if we -- what
the ruling was going to be. So we're willing to work with counsel on the
documentation, but the video is pretty extensive.”).)
Thus, to the extent the Court’s prior order requires clarification, the Court hereby
clarifies that Defendant was and currently is under Court order to produce all
documents being withheld on the basis of HIPAA protections, with any HIPAA-
protected information redacted, for now. (Doc. No. 94.)
b. 	Supplementation of Rule 26a disclosures, to include any documents,
trainings, policies, and/or procedures on which Defendant intends to rely for
any defense or claim made in its pleadings.
In the Joint Status Report, Defendant makes the following statement:
Defendant’s Counsel agreed to produce redacted employee files as requested by
Plaintiffs on December 16, 2025, as part of supplemental disclosures. It was
Defendant’s Counsel’s understanding that the other materials requested by
Plaintiffs, that Defendant had not agreed to disclose as part of supplemental
disclosures, were the subject of the Court’s Discovery Order [ECF No. 94] and
would not be produced until either three days following the closing of the
objection window (which was understood to be fourteen days from the date of the
Court’s Discovery Order) or three days following the ruling of such objection.
Based on the above, Defendant’s Counsel seeks clarification from the Court as to
its instructions on production in relation to the Defendant’s objection to the
Court’s discovery order.
(Doc. No. 99 at 7.) Defendant’s purported understanding is incorrect. The Court
sua sponte stayed only the portion of its order that would require Defendant to
produce HIPAA protected materials. And as to those, Defendant was required to
produce them in redacted form preliminarily, then unredacted after resolution of
Case No. 1:25-cv-01552-WJM-MDB Document 103 filed 01/02/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
any forthcoming objection. At no time did Defendant indicate the policies and
trainings would fall under HIPAA protection—and indeed it is difficult to
imagine how a privacy protection would attach to general policies, procedures, or
trainings.
Thus, to the extent the Court’s prior order requires clarification, the Court hereby
clarifies that Defendant was and currently is under Court order to produce
documents, trainings, policies, and/or procedures on which it intends to rely for
any defense or claim made in its pleadings, and that such documents shall be
produced in unredacted form. (Doc. No. 94 at 2.)
c. 	A list of all written policies, procedures, and training materials. The Court
ordered Defendant to produce “a list of all policies and all training materials so
that [Plaintiff] can determine how to appropriately frame requests in the future.”
(See Doc. No. 100 at 113:11-13.) After issuing that order, the Court moved on to
discuss redactions and resolution of the forthcoming objection, but that discussion
concerned the HIPAA documents, not the list of policies, procedures and training.
Again—and to a greater degree for this portion of the production— it is difficult
to imagine how a privacy protection would attach to a list of general policies.
2. 	The Court also expressly ordered Defendant to refrain from making any redactions on the
basis of relevance. (See Doc. No. 100 at 86:25-87:5 (“So no redactions for relevance, no
redactions for any of that. Again, you'll have a protective order that allows you to
designate certain things with that higher designation of attorneys' eyes only to protect
sensitive material. There should be no redactions for anything other than a valid
privilege.”).) Though it is not entirely clear from the Joint Status Report, it appears
Defendant may misunderstand this order as well. Thus, the Court takes this opportunity
to emphasize that no redactions may be made on the basis of relevance. This order
applies in the context of producing preliminarily redacted HIPAA-implicated
documents—and it applies throughout the remainder of the case.
At this time, the Court attributes no ill intent to Defendant or defense counsel, and instead
attributes the erroneous reconstruction of the hearing to a simple misunderstanding. Defendant is
Case No. 1:25-cv-01552-WJM-MDB Document 103 filed 01/02/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
on notice, however, that repeated misunderstandings may cause the Court to revisit its initial
conclusion.
The Court now turns to the motions at Doc. Nos. 97 and 101. With regard to the
Protective Order Motion, the parties were directed to submit proposed language for an
Attorney’s Eyes Only (“AEO”) designation but were unable to agree on the language. Upon
review of each party’s proposed AEO provision, the Court GRANTS the Protective Order
Motion, Doc. No. 97, with amendments.
Next, Defendant moves for a two-week extension of time to provide a privilege log and
affidavit to Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 101.) The Court previously indicated that it may support an
extension of this deadline to enable fulsome conferral regarding disputes about the privilege log;
moreover, the motion is unopposed. (Id.; see Doc. No. 100 at 118.) As such, the Court GRANTS
the Extension of Time Motion. (Doc. No. 101.) The deadline for Defendant to provide Plaintiff
with a privilege log and affidavit is extended through January 6, 2026.
Dated this 31st of December, 2025,
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
Maritza Dominguez Braswell
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-01552-WJM-MDB Document 103 filed 01/02/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5