Medrano v. Starbucks Corporation et al

Filing 32

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER PLAINTIFF'S EDD RECORDS. The hearing scheduled for 3/22/2012 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/21/12. (fsS, ) (Filed on 3/21/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 MA JANETTE MEDRANO, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Case No.: C-11-04846-YGR ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER PLAINTIFF’S EDD RECORDS vs. STARBUCKS CORP., et al., Northern District of California United States District Court 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 On March 21, 2012, the parties filed letters with the Court regarding their dispute concerning 16 the release of Plaintiff’s records from the Employment Development Department (“EDD”). (Dkt. 17 Nos. 29 (“Plaintiff’s Letter”) & 30 (“Defendants’ Letter”).) Plaintiff “object[s] to releas[ing] [her] 18 entire Employment Development Department files for disability and employment benefits.” 19 Plaintiff’s Letter at 1. She contends that while Defendants are entitled to evidence supporting her 20 injury claims, they are not entitled to all medical records relating to her injury. Id. (a party may seek 21 “limited discovery” of the claims at issue in the litigation). Rather than produce the records to 22 Defendants, Plaintiff has proposed that she receive the records and prepare a “verified document 23 containing amounts of payments [Plaintiff] had received from EDD, and the dates of the payments, 24 and the total payments.” Id. 25 Defendants seek Plaintiff’s EDD records from April 7, 2010 (the date of the accident) to the 26 present. Defendants’ Letter at 2 & Ex. B to Plaintiff’s Letter. They seek this discovery to the extent 27 that the records may contain statements by Plaintiff regarding the reasons she “quit” her employment 28 and/or reasons she could not work, which are relevant to her claims that Defendants failed to provide 1 her with an accommodation and that she was a qualified individual with a disability. Defendants’ 2 Letter at 1. In addition, other discovery in this action has revealed that Plaintiff is being treated by a 3 physician for emotional distress resulting from issues in this litigation, specifically the EDD records. 4 Id. 5 6 7 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court FINDS as follows: 1. Defendants are entitled to Plaintiff’s EDD records from April 7, 2010 to the present, 8 except for those records reflecting the EDD’s own analysis of Plaintiff’s claims for 9 disability or employment benefits. 10 2. The EDD records are relevant to the issues in this action and are reflective of, among Northern District of California other things, Plaintiff’s statements that she made to the EDD regarding the reasons she 12 United States District Court 11 is unable to work, her employment status, and more generally, why she believes she is 13 entitled to benefits. See Wesley v. Gates, No. C 08-2719 SI, 2009 WL 1955997, at *1 14 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2009) (granting defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s 15 authorization of release of EDD records because they are “relevant to plaintiff’s 16 disability discrimination claims”). 17 3. Plaintiff’s medical records, to the extent they exist in the EDD file and relate to 18 Plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress, are relevant. Moreover, Defendants’ request is 19 limited to the date of the accident to the present and they have offered to receive the 20 records subject to a protective order. 21 4. The EDD’s decisions regarding Plaintiff’s claims for benefits and any analysis or 22 conclusions of statements or documents submitted by Plaintiff are not relevant to this 23 action. 24 25 For these reasons, and based on the Court’s understanding that these records are needed for Plaintiff’s deposition noticed for April 19, 2012 (Dkt. No. 23), the Court ORDERS that: 26 1. Within 48 hours of this Order, Plaintiff request the records in dispute from the EDD. 27 2. Upon receipt, Plaintiff shall review the records and produce all relevant portions as 28 defined above. 2 1 3. Plaintiff shall produce along with the relevant documents, a log identifying the nature 2 of any document not produced, within seven (7) days of receiving the file, or by April 3 12, 2012—whichever is sooner. If the records cannot be obtained from the EDD and 4 produced pursuant to the above timeframe, the Court encourages the parties to meet 5 and confer regarding additional dates. 6 The hearing scheduled for March 22, 2012 is hereby VACATED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: March 21, 2012 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 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?