Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight v. North Memorial Health Care
Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Health
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-00440
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Kaliher v. North Memorial Health Care, Magistrate Judge Micko granted in part and denied in part North Memorial's motion to compel discovery, ordering plaintiffs to produce health-related emails, social media posts, browsing history, search history, and app information, but rejecting requests for household members' contact details, wireless network history, and other overbroad demands.
Current and former patients of North Memorial Health Care who are plaintiffs in this class-action privacy lawsuit, and health systems or other defendants in similar 'pixel tracking' litigation, as the ruling defines the scope of health-related digital discovery plaintiffs may be required to produce.
What happened
The core dispute was about how broadly North Memorial could reach into plaintiffs' digital lives to find alternative explanations for how their health information ended up online. North Memorial argued it needed wide-ranging information about all of plaintiffs' internet activity, devices, accounts, household members, and wireless networks to defend itself. Plaintiffs argued most of those requests were irrelevant, invasive, and too burdensome. The court found that many of North Memorial's original requests were indeed overbroad, but also found that plaintiffs had improperly narrowed some requests on their own before responding — something a party cannot do unilaterally.
Magistrate Judge Micko granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court ordered plaintiffs to supplement their responses with health-related information only: email accounts and devices used for health-care purposes; social media posts, comments, and activity related to their health or status as North Memorial patients; internet browsing and search history related to their health; emails about their health or North Memorial; and information about health-related apps downloaded on their devices. The court denied North Memorial's demands for household members' names and contact details, information about all wireless networks plaintiffs ever used, all browser plugins and settings, and other requests the court found too far removed from the actual claims in the case. All ordered discovery must be produced within 21 days, and each side must pay its own legal costs related to this motion.
The detailed version
Case: Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Health, Case No. 23-cv-440 (KMM/DLM), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Decided: October 15, 2025, by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko.
Background
Plaintiffs Heidi Kaliher, Tracey Knight, and Gregg Lurie (a named plaintiff in the underlying complaint) are current or former patients of North Memorial Health Care who allege that North Memorial secretly embedded Meta Platform's tracking pixel on its public website and password-protected patient portal. They allege this pixel collected sensitive health data — including appointment details, conditions researched, insurance status, and gender/sexual orientation — and transmitted it to Meta, which used the data to serve targeted advertisements on plaintiffs' social media accounts. Plaintiffs filed suit in February 2023, asserting claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Minnesota Wiretap Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Health Records Act, and unjust enrichment. An earlier motion to dismiss was granted as to two counts and denied as to five.
The Discovery Dispute
The case is in discovery (the pre-trial information-exchange phase). North Memorial moved to compel complete responses to nine interrogatories (written questions parties must answer under oath) and six requests for production of documents. The court held oral argument on October 10, 2025.
Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, parties may obtain discovery of any non-privileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery must make a threshold showing of relevance; if met, the resisting party bears the burden of showing lack of relevance or undue burden. A party cannot be compelled to produce documents not in its possession, and a claim of full production must be accepted at face value.
General Issues
- Mootness: Plaintiffs argued the motion was moot because they had already responded. The court rejected this, finding plaintiffs had impermissibly narrowed North Memorial's requests on their own before responding — a party may not unilaterally redefine its adversary's discovery requests and then claim mootness. - Overbreadth: The court agreed that many of North Memorial's requests as originally written were overbroad and not proportional. However, North Memorial's separately filed Proposed Order contained narrowed versions of many requests, and at the hearing North Memorial confirmed it was seeking relief consistent with those narrowed versions. - Local Rule 7.1 compliance: Plaintiffs argued North Memorial failed to properly meet and confer before filing. The court declined to deny the motion on this basis given the overlap among disputed requests and the approaching discovery deadline. - Temporal scope: The parties agreed discovery is limited to the period beginning February 22, 2017.
Rulings on Individual Requests
Interrogatory No. 3 (email accounts and devices): As written, overbroad. But the court ordered plaintiffs to supplement their responses to include email accounts, devices, and media used for health-care related matters, finding North Memorial is entitled to explore what other sources may have collected plaintiffs' health data.
Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production No. 15 (facts supporting paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint; related documents): As written, overbroad. The court granted the motion as narrowed in the Proposed Order — plaintiffs must produce emails sent or received relating to their health status, North Memorial, or any other health-care related issues.
Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production No. 10 (social media accounts and content): As written, overbroad. As narrowed in the Proposed Order — limited to posts, comments, likes, group memberships, check-ins, and blog posts referencing physical/mental health, patient status at North, or other health-care issues — the court granted the motion. The court found social media records are highly relevant to plaintiffs' claims and to North Memorial's defenses, including alternative explanations for how health data became public and the value of plaintiffs' privacy interests. The court also found 'social media' is not an ambiguous term.
Interrogatory Nos. 13–16 (household members' devices and contact information; persons with access to plaintiffs' accounts/devices; persons connected to plaintiffs' IP or home wireless network; locations of shared wireless network use): The court denied the motion as to all four. While acknowledging marginal relevance, the court found the burden and intrusiveness of each request far outweighed any benefit. Plaintiffs had already attested that no household members accessed North's websites. Seeking names, addresses, and phone numbers of household members and third parties was characterized as 'fishing.' The wireless-network requests were found too attenuated from the actual claims.
Interrogatory No. 17 (all applications downloaded on smart devices): As written, overbroad. The court granted the motion in part, ordering plaintiffs to identify any application downloaded for health-care related matters — including health apps, navigation apps used to locate providers, and forum apps used to research health information — but not every application ever downloaded.
Request for Production Nos. 11–12 (complete browsing history; complete internet search history): As written, exceedingly overbroad and intrusive. As narrowed — limited to browsing and search history relating to physical or mental health status, status as a North patient, or other health-care issues — the court granted the motion, finding health-related internet activity directly relevant to the case.
Request for Production No. 13 (browser settings, plug-ins, add-ons, extensions affecting plaintiffs' experience on any website): Denied. As written, uniquely ambiguous. North Memorial's Proposed Order attempted to reframe the request as interrogatories (seeking statements of information rather than documents), which the court found improper — a document request cannot be converted into an interrogatory via a proposed order. The motion was denied as to this request.
Outcome
Motion to compel granted in part and denied in part. All ordered supplemental discovery must be produced within 21 days. Each side bears its own attorneys' fees and costs related to the motion.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.