Lewis v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER Re In Camera Review of Medical Documents. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/12/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 AARON LEWIS, 9 Plaintiff, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-12-6354 EMC HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al., 12 ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW OF MEDICAL DOCUMENTS Defendants. ___________________________________/ 13 14 15 The parties in the above-referenced case have stipulated to an in camera review of certain 16 medical records related to the treatment of Plaintiff. See Docket No. 30 (stipulation). Plaintiff has 17 lodged a copy of the documents with the Court, and the Court has reviewed those documents. 18 Having reviewed the documents, the Court hereby orders that some, but not all, documents be 19 produced. The Court notes that, for some documents (Bates-stamped 20, 21, 24, and 136) it has not 20 been able to conduct an in camera review because the doctor’s handwritten notes are illegible. 21 However, given the Court’s rulings here, the parties should be able to meet and confer and work out 22 any remaining disputes with respect to these documents. If not, the parties should file a joint letter 23 within two weeks of the date of this order, addressing what the remaining dispute is and each party’s 24 respective position. Plaintiff must also transcribe any handwritten notes, if necessary, to enable the 25 Court’s review and resolution of the dispute. 26 27 28 The Court’s rulings here are informed by the parties’ compromise agreement that Plaintiff would produce documents responsive to the modified subpoena. See Docket No. 30 (Stip. ¶ 7). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (1) Plaintiff shall produce documents Bates-stamped 5-6, 9-12, and 131-32 because they are probative of an injury related to stress. (2) Plaintiff need not produce documents Bates-stamped 16-18 and 53-54 because they do not appear to be responsive to the modified subpoena. (3) Plaintiff shall produce documents Bates-stamped 39-42 because the modified subpoena specifically asks for billing and insurance information. This order resolves Docket No. 30. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: June 12, 2013 12 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?