Pauly et al v. Stanford Health Care

Filing 78

ORDER RE FIRST DISCOVERY LETTER granting in part and denying in part 72 Discovery Letter Brief. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/7/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:18-cv-05387-SI Document 78 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MAKENZIE PAULY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-05387-SI
ORDER RE FIRST DISCOVERY
LETTER

v.
STANFORD HEALTH CARE,

Re: Dkt. No. 72

Defendant.

12
13

On August 17, 2021, plaintiff Makenzie Pauly filed a first discovery letter regarding three

14

subpoenas issued by defendant Stanford Health Care (“defendant’s subpoenas”). Dkt. No. 72. On

15

August 20, 2021, defendant filed a letter in response. Dkt. No. 74. For the reasons stated below,

16

the Court modifies defendant’s subpoenas to matters concerning plaintiff’s physical injuries during

17

November 2008 and December 2008.

18
19

BACKGROUND

20

This case arises from defendant’s alleged failure to screen and treat plaintiff in November

21

2008 and December 2008 (“Underlying Incident”). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff claims she suffered

22

personal injury from defendant’s alleged refusal to accept plaintiff as a transfer patient and provide

23

plaintiff medical care. Dkt. No. 1 at 8. Plaintiff further claims she suffered physical, mental, and

24

emotional distress while waiting six weeks for an appointment with defendant. Id.

25

On July 30, 2021, defendant issued three deposition subpoenas to the custodian of records

26

for Sutter Medical Center: (1) “ALL DOCUMENTS, MEDICAL RECORDS, OFFICE RECORDS,

27

EMERGENCY ROOM RECORDS, SIGN-IN SHEETS, MEDICAL TESTS, INPATIENT AND

28

OUTPATIENT CHARTS AND RECORDS, RADIOLOGICAL REPORTS AND TEST

Case 3:18-cv-05387-SI Document 78 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3

1

RESULTS.

2

EXAMINATION OF MAKENZIE PAULY (DOB: 09/25/1998)”; 2) “Any and all x-ray films,

3

MRS’s, CT scans and any other type of film pertaining to the care, treatment or examination

4

pertaining to MAKENZIE PAULY (DOB: 09/25/1998) from the first date to, and including, the

5

present.”; and 3) “All itemized statements of billing charges, invoices, records of adjustments and/or

6

write/offs, payments and credits, explanation of benefits, balance due and insurance records.” Dkt.

7

No. 72 at 4-23.

8
9

ALL OF THE ABOVE PERTAINING TO THE CARE, TREATMENT OR

On August 17, 2021, the plaintiff filed a first discovery letter objecting defendant’s
subpoenas. Dkt. No. 72. On August 20, 2021, defendant filed a response letter. Dkt. No. 74.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

LEGAL STANDARD

12

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party may subpoena and command the

13

production of documents. FED. R. CIV. P. 45 (a)(1)(C). A party may obtain discovery relating to

14

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the

15

needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). The Court may quash or modify a subpoena if the

16

subpoena “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver

17

applies.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3)(A) (iii).

18

“[I]n a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state

19

law supplies the rule of decision.” FED. R. E. 501. In California, plaintiffs are “not obligated to

20

sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific (physical,) mental or emotional injury.” In re

21

Lifschutz, 467 P.2d 557, 570 (1970). Plaintiffs “are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all

22

unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past” and

23

“unquestionably waive their physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges as to all

24

information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue.” Britt v. Superior

25

Court, 574 P.2d 766, 768-69, 779 (1978). Waiver requires “asserting more than a garden-variety

26

claim of emotional distress.” Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 97 (S.D. Cal. 1995).

27
28
2

Case 3:18-cv-05387-SI Document 78 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3

DISCUSSION

1
2

Plaintiff argues defendant’s subpoenas are privileged and beyond the scope of her claims.

3

Dkt. No. 72 at 2. Defendant argues discovery of all of plaintiff’s physical and mental health records

4

is warranted because plaintiff placed her health at issue in this case. Dkt. No. 74 at 1-2.
The Court finds defendant’s subpoenas to be overbroad. The complaint limits plaintiff’s

6

claims to her alleged pain and resulting inability to walk during Underlying Incident in November

7

2008 and December 2008. Dkt. No. 1 at 9-19. See Britt v. Superior Court, 574 P.2d 766, 778-79

8

(1978) (vacating order permitting discovery of plaintiff’s entire medical history and rejecting

9

argument that discovery would determine injury when plaintiff identified particular ailments).

10

Plaintiff did not place her entire mental health history by claiming she suffered severe “mental and

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

emotional distress” during the six weeks of waiting for an appointment with defendant. Compare

12

Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 633, 639 (N.D. Cal.2003) (no waiver of privacy of plaintiff’s

13

medical and billing records when plaintiff did not allege “cause of action for intentional or negligent

14

infliction of emotional distress” or “specific psychiatric injury or disorder or unusually severe

15

emotional distress extraordinary in light of the allegations”) with Dornell v. City of San Mateo, 12-

16

cv-6065-CRB (KAW), 2013 WL 5443036 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013) (waiver of privacy when

17

plaintiff alleged “severe emotional distress” resulting in “anxiety, high blood pressure, chest pain,

18

sleeplessness, weight gain, inability to focus and loss of interest in daily life activities and hobbies”).

19

Accordingly, defendant’s subpoenas shall be limited to records that concern plaintiff’s

20

alleged pain and physical injury during November 2008 and December 2008.

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 7, 2021
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3