Ghaemmaghami v. Dignity Health

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Vafa Ghaemmaghami,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dignity Health,
Defendant.
No. CV-24-00052-PHX-KML
ORDER
The parties ask the court to resolve three discovery disputes in this case between
plaintiff Vafa Ghaemmaghami and defendant Dignity Health (“Dignity”) regarding
Dignity’s provision of paid time off for physicians. First, in response to Ghaemmaghami’s
NUI 3, which requests in part that Dignity identify all physicians it employed during the
relevant period, Dignity objects to identifying physicians who are not part of the Dignity
affiliate Dignity Health Medical Group (“DHMG”). (Doc. 81 at 4.) This limited definition
affects additional RFPs which request documents related to all physicians. (Doc. 81 at 3.)
Second, the parties contest whether a court-imposed deadline for Dignity’s response to
Ghaemmaghami’s RFPs 8-10 is appropriate. (Doc. 81 at 3.) Third, Ghaemmaghami’s
counsel objects to revealing whether they still represent 34 physicians on whose behalf
counsel sent a demand letter to Dignity prior to litigation. (Doc. 81 at 3-4.)
Ghaemmaghami worked under a contract which entitled him to participate in
employee benefit plans, allegedly including the paid time away (“PTA”) policy. (Doc. 45
at 9-10.) That contract stated he would be compensated according to the Physician
Case 2:24-cv-00052-KML Document 82 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Compensation Plan, of which there were three during the relevant time (versions from
2016, 2019, and 2023), and some of which addressed PTA. (Doc. 45 at 3-4.) Because these
Compensation Plans apply specifically to physician employees of DHMG of Arizona (see
Doc. 45-1 at 31), Dignity agrees only to identify DHMG physicians rather than all Dignity
physicians. (Doc. 81 at 4.) But the allegation that Dignity failed to provide proper PTA
relies on more than just the Compensation Plans: Ghaemmaghami argues the contract itself
entitled him to state-wide Dignity PTA plans, the failure to provide any PTA violates
statutes regardless of the particular plan, and non-DHMG physicians were subject to
substantially the same terms as those in these Compensation Plans. (Doc. 81 at 2-3.) This
conclusion is supported by the complaint, which describes as relevant “[a]ll Physicians
who are or were employed by Dignity” and who signed contracts “like the one Dr.
Ghaemmaghami signed.” (See Doc. 45 at 20, 23.) These allegations dictate that the court
should not limit a potential class at this stage, before it has even been proposed. Dignity
must provide responses for all Dignity physicians in the relevant time period.
The parties also disagree whether a deadline should be set for Dignity’s production
in response to RFPs 8-10. This appears to be a large production Dignity is currently
preparing after the parties agreed on search terms on November 11, 2025. (Doc. 81 at 3.)
A deadline is a reasonable request. But the parties are in the best position to identify the
appropriate deadline based on their knowledge of the search terms, volume of responsive
documents, and likely time necessary to review the production before other deadlines arise.
The parties must confer and file a joint proposed deadline for the production to be complete.
If the parties cannot agree, they may submit separate deadlines in a supplemental joint
discovery dispute pleading.
Finally, before this lawsuit was filed, Ghaemmaghami’s “counsel sent a demand
letter to Dignity on behalf of 34 physicians” which alleged similar claims. (Doc. 81 at 3.)
Dignity’s counsel has asked Ghaemmaghami’s counsel to identify which of the 34
physicians it currently represents so Dignity may conduct interviews or depositions,
presumably to avoid violating ethical rules prohibiting counsel from communicating with
Case 2:24-cv-00052-KML Document 82 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
represented persons. (Doc. 81 at 5.) See Ariz. R. of Pro. Conduct ER 4.2. Ghaemmaghami’s
counsel has refused, citing other ethical rules prohibiting counsel from revealing
information related to client representation (Doc. 81 at 3). See Ariz. R. of Pro. Conduct ER
1.6. But Ghaemmaghami’s counsel has previously voluntarily revealed its representation
of these 34 individuals. (Doc. 81 at 4.) This disclosure constitutes a waiver of the attorney-
client privilege, State v. Sucharew, 66 P.3d 59, 65 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003), which undergirds
Rule 1.6. See Ariz. R. of Pro. Conduct ER 1.6, 2003 comment (“The principle of client-
lawyer confidentiality is given effect by related bodies of law [including] the attorney-
client privilege”); cf. Naranjo v. Sukenic in & for Cnty. of Maricopa, 524 P.3d 1123, 1131
(Ariz. 2023) (holding both attorney-client privilege and Rule 1.6 waived together).
Ghaemmaghami’s counsel must therefore identify those individuals they continue to
represent.
IT IS ORDERED Dignity must provide the contact information for all physicians
for the requested time period.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than December 24, 2025, the parties shall
file a joint statement identifying the agreed deadline for the completion of the production
in response to RFPs 8-10, or the deadline proposed by each side.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than December 24, 2025,
Ghaemmaghami’s counsel shall identify which of the 34 physicians on whose behalf it
previously sent a demand letter it still represents.
Dated this 19th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-00052-KML Document 82 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 3