Lobato v. Gomez, et al.

Filing 96

ORDER responding to plaintiff's request for clarification re the Court's order on defendants' motion in limine, document 91 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/7/2017. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

RACHEL LOBATO,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 1:15-cv-00686-EPG

v.
EVERARDO O. GOMEZ, individually and dba EL
SARAPE RESTAURANT; DOLORES B.
GOMEZ, individually and dba EL SARAPE
RESTAURANT,
Defendants.

ORDER RESPONDING TO
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION RE COURT
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
IN LIMINE
(ECF No. 91)

18
On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an order concerning redactions of medical records
19
following an in camera review. (ECF No. 87) In that order, the Court noted that redactions included
20
medical diagnoses, notwithstanding Plaintiff counsel’s representation that redactions only concerned
21

“identifying information,” and that Plaintiff should provide records unredacting any such medical

22
diagnoses. (ECF No. 87 at 2, n. 2.)
23
On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for clarification concerning this order. (ECF No.
24
91.) Plaintiff seeks clarification on two issues: 1) whether Plaintiff is required to provide all records
25
26
27
28

to opposing counsel in light of the Court’s subsequent decision that only a portion of the records are
admissible at trial; and 2) whether the Court intended to have medical information that is not related
to her disability produced to the Defendants. (Id. at 2.)
1

1

The February 28, 2017 order was sufficiently clear as to both inquires, and the answer is yes

2

to both. Admissibility at trial is a separate issue from proper disclosure in discovery. The redacted

3

medical diagnoses are not unduly confidential in light of the disclosures already made about

4

Plaintiff’s medical issues. Moreover, the Court’s order merely requires Plaintiff’s counsel to adhere

5

to its own representation that redactions only consist of identifying information.

6

Counsel for Plaintiff also suggests that the Court misinterpreted his statements in open court

7

in the February 22 hearing and claims that he equivocated on the basis for the redactions. The

8

exchange concerning redactions occurred as follows:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

THE COURT: Mr. Best, what's the issue with the redactions? Why were there
redacted files? --MR. BEST: --- Oh, it's purely identifying characters, Social Security Numbers, what
appear to be patient ID numbers. You'll see this afternoon very little is actually
redacted. It's just identifying information. I don't think the -- I'm the one who redacted
it.
The Court does not believe it misunderstood Plaintiff’s counsel.
The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s counsel’s apology for the inaccuracy and has no basis to
believe Plaintiff’s counsel acted with ill intent. That said, the Court believes it is appropriate to take

17
counsel at their word in representations to the Court.
18
This order resolves Plaintiff’s request for clarification re Court order on Defendants’ Motion
19
in Limine. (ECF No. 91)
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated:

March 7, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2