Naff et al v. State Farm General Insurance Company

Filing 18

ORDER After Mid-Discovery Status Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/15/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HALONDA NAFF, et al,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

15
Defendant.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00515 JLT
ORDER AFTER MID-DISCOVERY STATUS
CONFERENCE
(Doc. 17)

On January 15, 2016, the Court held the mid-discovery status conference. In their joint status

18

conference statement and at the conference, counsel alerted the Court to various issues that have arisen

19

in completing the discovery. Most issues, though discussed at the conference, required further meet-

20

and-confer efforts before the Court could assist in obtaining a compromise. However, the parties did

21

agree as to an issue related to subpoenas for medical records for the Plaintiffs’ daughter.

22

Plaintiffs have objected to these subpoenas, in essence, because the child’s medical problems

23

are not placed at issue by the litigation and because it invades the child’s privacy interests. Defendant

24

counters that, because Plaintiffs are raising emotional distress claims that are greater than garden-

25

variety, it is entitled to investigate other sources of stressors.

26

Counsel agreed that the records would be produced to the Court to conduct an in camera

27
28
1

1

review.1 All agreed that in the event the Court finds records that should be disclosed, it will issue an

2

order describing the records generally and identifying them by Bates number. It will give Plaintiffs a

3

deadline by which they will indicate whether they continue to object to the production of the records.

4

If they do, the Court will decide whether a further conference would be fruitful or simply authorize

5

defendant to proceed with a motion to compel. In the event the Court finds no records that should be

6

disclosed, the Court will issue an order broadly outlining its findings and indicating that the subpoenas

7

should be quashed.
The Court will review the records while keeping in mind Defendant’s stated purpose for

8
9

obtaining them. Thus, the Court will look for records that provide a reasonable basis for alternative

10

sources for emotional distress that rise above the level of a garden-variety emotional distress. Thus,

11

the Court ORDERS:

12

1.

As soon as possible, but no later than January 19, 2015, counsel SHALL submit a letter

13

to the deposition officer and the recipients of the subpoenas, requiring the records to be gathered and

14

produced as quickly as possible but no later than January 29, 2016. The letter may be joint or may be

15

provided by Plaintiff’s counsel only. After the Court’s review, it will proceed as described above;

16

2.

Counsel SHALL meet and confer related to all outstanding discovery disputes and

17

SHALL make best efforts to resolve the issues as soon as possible. In the event the issues cannot be

18

resolved, counsel SHALL seek an informal conference with the Court before filing any motions to

19

compel. 2 When seeking the informal conference, they SHALL provide the Court a brief, joint

20

statement outlining the dispute. The Court will then determine whether informal discussions with the

21

Court will be required before it authorizes the party to file the motion.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

January 15, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff may choose to have a copy of the records produced to her counsel at the same time—at her expense.
As to Defendant’s possible motion to amend the case schedule, no further conference with the Court is required before
filing the motion if the formal meet-and-confer efforts fail to resolve the dispute on this topic.
2

2