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

Filing 40

ORDER (1) Re 32 34 38 Letter Briefs of July 29, 2013, July 30, 2013 and August 6, 2013; and Denying 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/9/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2013)

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

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13

ORDER (1) RE LETTER BRIEFS OF
JULY 29, 2013, JULY 30, 2013, AND
AUGUST 6, 2013; AND (2) DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Docket Nos. 32, 34, 35, 38)

14
15
16

Defendant has asked the Court to order Plaintiff to execute authorization forms permitting

17

the release of information from the Employment Development Department (“EDD”) and the Social

18

Security Administration (“SSA”) related to Plaintiff’s claims for and receipt of disability benefits.

19

Plaintiff has opposed the request. For the reasons discussed below, the Court stands by its original

20

order GRANTING Defendant relief, see Docket No. 33 (order), and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for

21

leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

22

With respect to EDD documents, Plaintiff has no standing to raise the privilege of the EDD.

23

Moreover, ordering Plaintiff to execute an authorization form does not prohibit the EDD from

24

asserting any privilege, as it did in Richards v. Superior Court, 258 Cal. App. 2d 635 (1968)

25

(addressing claim of privilege by EDD with respect to medical evaluation performed by doctor that

26

EDD referred plaintiff to for an examination and report). The Court also notes that, in Richards, the

27

state appellate court specifically noted that the plaintiff (as opposed to the EDD) had waived any

28

claim of privilege on her own behalf by bringing her personal injury suit. See id. at 637-38

1

(“Plaintiff’s purported ‘consent’ here is simply a recognition of the legal fact that, as between herself

2

and the personal injury defendant, she could be compelled to waive any privileges which restrict a

3

full investigation of her present claim. The privilege with which we are involved is that asserted by

4

the Department of Employment, a public agency.”).

5

As for the SSA documents, similar to above, Plaintiff has no basis to assert any privilege on

6

behalf of the SSA, and, in any event, the Court’s order here does not bar the SSA from raising any

7

privilege. The Court also notes that there is no statute or regulation under the Social Security Act –

8

or at least none has been cited by Plaintiff – that is comparable to the state statutes on which the

9

Richards court relied in finding that the EDD documents were privileged. Finally, to the extent
Plaintiff contends that he does not have control over the SSA documents, that is belied by the federal

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

regulations. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 401.35 (“The Privacy Act gives you the right to direct access to

12

most records about yourself that are in our systems of records.”). Clark v. Vega Wholesale, 181

13

F.R.D. 470 (D. Nev. 1998), is distinguishable as, there, the medical records were in the possession

14

of the plaintiff’s doctor, not the SSA.

15

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 32, 34, 35, and 38.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: August 9, 2013

20

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2