Weingand v. Harland Financial Solutions, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING HARLAND'S REQUEST FOR MEDICAL RELEASE AND DENYING HARLAND'S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 27 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 5/1/12. (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12

MICHAEL WEINGAND,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.
HARLAND FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS,
INC.,

Case No. 11-cv-03109 EMC (NC)
ORDER GRANTING HARLAND’S
REQUEST FOR MEDICAL RELEASE
AND DENYING HARLAND’S REQUEST
FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 27

Defendant.

17
18
19

The parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Harland requests an order compelling

20

Weingand to sign a release that would allow Harland to obtain Weingand’s medical records.

21

Harland also requests an award of attorneys’ fees to compensate it for its efforts to obtain the

22

release. Weingand opposes the requests, arguing that his medical records are privileged and that

23

Harland may obtain discovery on Weingand’s emotional distress from other sources. Because

24

Weingand’s medical records are relevant to two of the claims in the complaint, and because the

25

records are not subject to the physician-client privilege under California law, Harland’s request

26

for an order compelling Weingand to sign a medical release is GRANTED. Harland’s request for

27

attorneys’ fees is DENIED, as Harland has not established that sanctions are warranted.

28

//
Case No. 11-cv-03109 EMC (NC)
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST
FOR MEDICAL RELEASE

1

A.

Weingand’s medical records are relevant to the claims in this action under Rule 26
A party may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a

2
3

party’s claim or defense. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible

4

at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

5

evidence.” Id.
Here, Weingand’s medical records fall within the scope of discoverable information under

6
7

Rule 26, as they are relevant to two of the claims Weingand brings against Harland. Weingand

8

brings six counts against Harland for retaliation, wrongful termination, and related claims in

9

violation of various California laws. Notice of Removal, Ex. A, Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. The

10

medical records requested by Harland are relevant to two of these counts. Count three alleges

11

violations of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and states that Weingand was entitled to

12

take CFRA leave for his “serious condition” but Harland retaliated against him for taking such

13

leave. Id. ¶¶ 59-60. Count six is for intentional infliction of emotional distress and states that

14

Harland’s acts were “extreme and outrageous” and caused him “severe emotional distress, as

15

evidenced by [Weingand’s] medical record.” Id. ¶ 84.

16

B.

Weingand’s records are not protected by the physician-patient privilege

17

Weingand argues that his medical records are privileged and not subject to discovery. He

18

contends that he has not waived privilege with respect to his medical records because he “intends

19

to rely solely on non-medical testimony to support his garden-variety emotional distress damages

20

claims.”1 Dkt. No. 27 at 6. The Court finds that Weingand’s medical records are not subject to

21

the physician-patient privilege recognized by California law because Weingand waived such

22

privilege by bringing claims against Harland for CFRA violations and for intentional infliction of

23

emotional distress.
A patient, whether or not a party to an action, “has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to

24
25
26
27
28

1

In the parties’ joint discovery letter, Weingand contends that his claims against Harland are for
violations of “state and federal civil rights related to his disciplines and termination from Harland
Financial.” Dkt. No. 27 at 5. Each of the claims in Weingand’s complaint, however, arises out of
California law only. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A. Accordingly, California law applies to Weingand’s
privilege claims with respect to his medical records.
Case No. 11-cv-03109 EMC (NC)
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST
FOR MEDICAL RELEASE

2

1

prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and

2

physician . . .” CAL. EVID. CODE § 994 (titled “Physician-patient privilege”). “The whole

3

purpose of the [physician-patient] privilege is to preclude the humiliation of the patient that might

4

follow disclosure of his ailments. When the patient himself discloses those ailments by bringing

5

an action in which they are in issue, there is no longer any reason for the privilege.” Palay v.

6

Superior Court, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 839, 844 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). Accordingly, the physician-

7

patient privilege does not apply “as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the

8

condition of the patient if such issue has been tendered by . . . the patient.” CAL. EVID. CODE §

9

996 (titled “Patient-litigant exception”).
Here, Weingand put his medical conditions at issue by suing Harland for CFRA violations

10
11

and intentional infliction of emotional distress; accordingly, he waived the physician-patient

12

privilege with respect to any medical records concerning the medical conditions that gave rise to

13

these claims. See, e.g., Rhodes v. County of Placer, 09-cv-00489, 2011 WL 130160, at *5 (E.D.

14

Cal. Jan. 14, 2011) (holding that the plaintiff waived privilege as to her medical records by

15

bringing claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and ordering the production of

16

relevant medical records). The extent of the waiver depends on the nature and date of origination

17

of Weingand’s medical conditions as alleged in the complaint. Because Weingand’s allegations

18

with respect to the medical conditions at issue are vague, the extent of the waiver is

19

correspondingly large. In the complaint, Weingand does not specify the nature or the date of

20

origination of the medical conditions at issue in this action. Weingand alleges merely that he

21

suffers from a “serious condition” that entitled him to CFRA leave, and that Harland’s actions

22

caused him “severe emotional distress, as evidenced by [Weingand’s] medical record.” Id. ¶¶ 59-

23

60, 84.

24

The Court finds that the scope of the medical release proposed by Harland is appropriate

25

given the vagueness of Weingand’s allegations with respect to the medical conditions at issue.

26

See Dkt. No. 27, Ex. A, Proposed Release (calling for “any and all records, information and

27

evidence in their possession regarding Mr. Weingand’s psychological conditions, mental

28

conditions, and mental health treatments and history of same from January 1, 2005 through the
Case No. 11-cv-03109 EMC (NC)
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST
FOR MEDICAL RELEASE

3

1

present”). Unless Weingand amends his complaint with the approval of District Judge Chen to

2

eliminate or reduce the scope of these allegations, Weingand must sign the medical release form

3

proposed by Harland and attached to the parties’ joint discovery letter as exhibit A by May 15,

4

2012.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Date: May 1, 2012

8

_____________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-03109 EMC (NC)
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST
FOR MEDICAL RELEASE

4