14.  The standard of care is the level at which the average, prudent provider in  a given field of medicine—here, surgery and anesthesiology—would practice. It is  how similarly qualified practitioners would have managed the patient’s care under the  same or similar circumstances.   15.  Surgeons and anesthesiologists concur that “filming sick people without  asking threatens the very dignity of their personhood.”6   16.  According to the director of the Office of Civil Rights for the Department  of Health and Human Services: “Patients in hospitals expect to encounter doctors and  nurses when getting treatment, not film crews recording them at their most private and  vulnerable moments.”7   49.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4) on behalf of herself and the following Class:  All women who underwent a surgical procedure in the  Women’s Health Center at Sharp Grossmont Hospital  between July 17, 2012 and June 30, 2013.    56.  Plaintiff and the Class restate and incorporates herein by reference the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   57.  Defendants secretly filmed Plaintiff and the Class while they were  unconscious or sedated undergoing medical procedures—without consent, and without  protecting their privacy.    58.  Plaintiff and the Class had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the  operating rooms of Sharp Grossmont Hospital’s Women’s Health Center.   59.  Doctors must obtain informed consent in order to provide medical  treatment. “Consent is based on the disclosure of information and a sharing of  interpretations of its meaning by a medical professional. The accuracy of disclosure,  insofar as it is possible, is governed by the ethical requirement of truth-telling.”11    64.  Plaintiff and the Class restate and incorporates herein by reference the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    65.  Defendants secretly filmed Plaintiff and the Class while they were  unconscious or sedated undergoing medical procedures—without consent, and without  protecting their privacy.    66.  Plaintiff and the Class had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the  operating rooms of Sharp Grossmont Hospital’s Women’s Health Center.   67.  Defendants filmed patients’ genitalia and their medical procedures  without their consent or any disclosure. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and  motivated by a commercial interest in disregard of Plaintiff’s and the Class’s privacy  rights.   71.  Plaintiff and the Class restate and incorporates herein by reference the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   72.  Defendants intentionally video recorded and/or eavesdropped on  Plaintiff’s and the Class’s confidential communications and medical procedures in the  operating rooms of Sharp Grossmont Hospital’s Women’s Health Center by using an  electronic device (hidden video cameras).   73.  Plaintiff and the Class had a reasonable expectation that their medical  procedures were not being video recorded.   74.  Plaintiff and the Class had a reasonable expectation that their  communications with medical personnel and their medical procedures were not being  viewed by Sharp security personnel or by anyone not medically necessary for their  care.    75.  As reflected above, Defendant unlawfully recorded confidential  information of Plaintiff and the Class and violated their privacy rights in violation of  California Penal Code §§ 632 and 637.2.   78.  Plaintiff and the Class restate and incorporates herein by reference the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   79.  The Defendants owed Plaintiff and the Class members a duty to use due  care to ensure their freedom from manipulation, abuse, and invasion of privacy while  undergoing surgery.   80.  By seeking medical treatment at Sharp Grossmont, a special, confidential,  and fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the Class members  and Defendants was created, resulting in Defendants owing Plaintiff and the Class a  duty to use due care.    81.  The Defendants’ installation of hidden cameras that recorded their  utterly-private medical procedures without disclosure or consent was so reckless as to  demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result to  Plaintiff and the Class.   82.  The Defendants’ conduct demonstrated a willful disregard for precautions  to protect the protected health information, confidentiality, and privacy interests of  Plaintiff and the Class.   83.  The Defendants’ conduct as described above demonstrated a willful  disregard for substantial risks to Plaintiff and Class members.    86.  Plaintiff and the Class restate and incorporates herein by reference the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   87.  The Defendants owed Plaintiff and the Class members a duty to take  reasonable protective measures to protect them and other patients from the risk of  disclosure of protected health information, compromising photographs and videos, and  invasion of privacy by properly warning, training, or educating Plaintiff and the Class  members and others about how to avoid such a risk.   88.  The Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective  measures to protect Plaintiff, Class members, and other patients from the risk of  disclosure of protected health information, compromising photographs and videos, and  invasion of privacy, such as the failure to properly warn, train or educate Plaintiff, the  Class members, and other patients about how to avoid such a particular.   89.  The Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective  measures to protect Plaintiff, Class members, and other patients from the risk of  disclosure of protected health information, compromising photographs and videos, and  invasion of privacy, by failing to supervise and stop their employees from recording  their medical procedures, and failed to properly handle those recordings after they  were completed.   91.  Plaintiff and the Class restate and incorporates herein by reference the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   92.  Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly  caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff and the Class members.    93.  Defendants’ outrageous conduct was not the type of ordinary physician  examination or even rude or obnoxious behavior that women should be expected to  tolerate. Rather, Defendants’ conduct exceeded all possible bounds of decency.   94.  Defendants acted with intent or recklessness knowing that their female  patients were likely to endure emotional distress given the relationship and trust  placed in them by patients.   95.  Defendants’ conduct caused suffering for Plaintiffs and the Class  members at levels that no reasonable person should have to endure.   96.  Plaintiff and the Class restate and incorporates herein by reference the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    97.  Defendants’ conduct negligently caused emotional distress to Plaintiff  and the Class members.    98.  Defendants could reasonably foresee that their actions would have caused  emotional distress to Plaintiff and the Class members.   A.  The standard of care for the treatment of women’s health.   A.  The standard of care for the treatment of women’s health. ..................... 4  B.  Defendants abused the trust of Plaintiffs and the Class and  violated the standard of care. ................................................................... 5  C.  The recordings were not filmed for the medical care of Sharp’s  patients. .................................................................................................... 6  D.  The recordings were revealed to the California Medical Board,  but not to patients. .................................................................................... 7  E.  Sharp failed to secure the recordings to protect patient privacy  after filming was complete. ...................................................................... 7  F.  Sharp publicly disclosed its gross invasion of privacy for the  first time on or about April 5, 2019. ......................................................... 8  G.  The statute of limitations is tolled based on the continuing  violations doctrine and fraudulent concealment. ..................................... 8  V.  COUNT III  VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §§ 632 AND  637.2 ................................................................................................................. 14  COUNT IV  GROSS NEGLIGENCE ........................................................................ 15  Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause: VII. REQUESTED IN GROSS NEGLIGENCE   INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS   INVASION OF PRIVACY – CAL. CONST., ART. 1, § 1   INVASION OF PRIVACY   NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, OR EDUCATE   NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS   VI.  CAUSES OF ACTION .................................................................................... 12  COUNT I INVASION OF PRIVACY ....................................................................... 12  VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §§ 632 AND 637.2   