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)

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