I'm pretty impressed with the dedication and judgment of all of the judicial officers in this case. Balancing privacy and relevance and burden during discovery is always tricky. But my strong sense is that what was done here was entirely right. We want to find out of a doctor is (as alleged) improperly delegating critical pain management decisions to an unqualified subordinate. He says he's simply dictating orders that the other person writes down, but the plaintiff has reason to disbelieve him. Looking at other orders he's signed for other surgeries may well indicate whether he's lying. So both the trial court and the Court of Appeal allow for limited discovery. With appropriate redaction and protective orders.
Sounds right to me. A nice balance between the various competing interests at stake.