On Sept. 12, 2017, plaintiff Matthew Flanigan, a company’s director of information technology, was terminated by his employer, Los Angeles-based Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory Inc. Flanigan had previously reported his suspicion that the company’s compliance manager had wrongfully transferred protected information about thousands of patients from her former employer’s database to Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory’s information-technology network, in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Flanigan claimed that, because of an ownership dispute between the company’s majority shareholders, his allegation was not immediately addressed. He claimed that, sometime later, on Aug. 28, 2017, the company asked him to sign a declaration indicating that the alleged violation did not occur. Flanigan refused to sign the declaration. Instead, he and other employees signed a different declaration the same day, reinforcing the allegation against the compliance manager. On Aug. 29, 2017, Flanigan was placed on investigative leave, was denied access to the company’s network — both in office or remotely — and was banished from the premises. The company claimed that, between Aug. 28 and Aug. 30, 2017, Flanigan logged on to the network remotely and deleted files. Flanigan’s termination was based on that claim. Flanigan sued Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory. The lawsuit alleged that the Flanigan’s termination was a retaliatory act that stemmed from whistleblower activity. Flanigan claimed that he was terminated for reporting the compliance manager’s HIPAA violation and for refusing to sign the declaration that the company had provided. He also claimed that if files were deleted from the company’s network, it had been done by someone else — ostensibly an agent of the company — as pretext for his termination. Defense counsel contended that Flanigan was unable to avail himself of whistleblower protection, since the declaration he signed contained attorney-client privileged communications. Defense counsel also contended that Flanigan was terminated for violating the investigative leave orders and logging on to the network remotely, despite being told not to do so., Flanigan claimed that he was wrongfully terminated. He claimed that he suffers residual emotional distress that caused a mental breakdown, which resulted in a three-week-long hospitalization. He undergoes psychological counseling. Flanigan sought recovery of damages for past and future loss of earnings, damages for past and future emotional suffering, and punitive damages. Defense counsel reported that Flanigan sought a total of more than $5 million.