Abel v. Oceanic Arcata, LP dba Red Roof Inn et al
Filing
66
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER NO. 1 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/7/2019)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
SHERIE ABEL,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
Case No. 17-cv-03734-SI
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
DISPUTE LETTER NO. 1
v.
OCEANIC ARCATA, LP, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 62, 64
Defendants.
17
18
On September 27, 2019, the parties submit a joint discovery dispute letter regarding
19
plaintiff’s responses to defendant Oceanic Arcata LP’s (“Oceanic”) special interrogatories set one
20
(“SROGS”). This order follows.
21
Defendant argues plaintiff’s responses are deficient and, while defendant admits to having a
22
copy of plaintiff’s medical records, argues that the records are so voluminous that the defense cannot
23
know which pages are relevant without guidance from plaintiff. Plaintiff’s medical records span
24
over 1100 pages and plaintiff listed 23 treating doctors in her expert disclosures. Dkt. No. 64 at 3.
25
Plaintiff argues the burden of providing the information sought is the same for both parties
26
27
28
and therefore plaintiff need not answer pursuant to FRCP 33(d). The Court disagrees.
Plaintiff is in a better position to answer many of the questions posed and indeed will need
to do so for trial. The Court will address each subset of SROGs in turn below.
1
Oceanic’s SROGs 1-11 ask for (1) dates of medical treatment; (2) names and addresses of
2
medical providers; and (3) costs plaintiff claims for medical treatment for various periods, all in
3
connection with injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained at the Red Roof Inn in Arcata (“the Incident”).
4
Dkt. No. 64 at 8-9.1 In response to each of these requests, plaintiff stated: “Objection: Undue and
5
burdensome. Statement of Reason: Plaintiff’s medical records are held by each individual medical
6
provider. As such, because they are as equally available to the defense as they are the plaintiff (and
7
the cost would be nearly identical), no response will be provided.” Id. at 16-18. Plaintiff shall
8
supplement her responses to SROGs 1-11 on or before October 23, 2019.
SROG 12 asks plaintiff to describe any future medical treatment she may require in
10
connection with the Incident. Dkt. No. 64 at 9. Plaintiff objected arguing the request calls for expert
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
testimony and refused to answer. Id. at 18. The Court agrees with plaintiff’s objection and she need
12
not supplement her answer.
13
SROGs 13-20 ask plaintiff whether during various time periods, in connection with the
14
Incident, she has been diagnosed with heterotrophic ossification, rectal prolapse, dysreflexia, and
15
pressure sores/ulcers, and to provide the name and address of the medical provider who diagnosed
16
and treated her. Dkt. No. 64 at 10. Plaintiff’s response to each of these requests stated: “Objection:
17
Undue and burdensome. Statement of Reason: Plaintiff’s medical records are held by each
18
individual medical provider. As such, because they are as equally available to the defense as they
19
are the plaintiff (and the cost would be nearly identical), no response will be provided.” Id. at 18-
20
21. Plaintiff shall supplement her responses to SROGs 1-11 on or before October 23, 2019.
21
SROGs 21-24 ask plaintiff to detail various monetary claims including: (1) claimed medical
22
expenses stemming from the Incident; (2) wage losses stemming from the Incident, and how plaintiff
23
calculates said wage loss; and (3) economic damages stemming from the Incident. Dkt. No. 64 at
24
11. Plaintiff refused to respond to SROG 21, arguing the information was equally available to
25
defendant. Id. at 20. Plaintiff shall supplement her response to SROG 21 on or before October 23,
26
2019. Plaintiff’s responses to SROG 22, 23, and 24 are sufficient.
27
28
1
For ease of reference, page numbers refer to the ECF assigned page number in the upper
right corner of the document.
2
1
SROG 25 asks: “How can hot water coming out of a shower spray nozzle pointed at the body
2
of a person sitting in a Hoyer lift cause burns only to the buttocks and hip area of the sitting person?”
3
Dkt. No. 64 at 11. Plaintiff objected, arguing the request is argumentative, assumes facts not in
4
evidence, and calls for expert testimony, and on those bases refused to answer. The Court agrees
5
with plaintiff; no answer is required.
6
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?