Ramachandran v. Accenture, LLP

Filing 38

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 34 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 2. Defendant's request for discovery granted in part and denied in part. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: July 29, 2013*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

ELEANOR RAMACHANDRAN, an individual,

12

No. C12-04834 HRL
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 2

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

ACCENTURE LLP, a limited liability
partnership; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

[Re: Docket No. 34]

Defendants.
/

16
17

Plaintiff Eleanor Ramachandran asserts state law claims for alleged employment

18

discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, as well as for alleged wage and hour

19

violations. Defendant Accenture, LLP (Accenture) removed the matter from state court,

20

asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

21

Plaintiff contends that defendant’s conduct caused her to suffer both physical and mental

22

discomfort. In response to one of defendant’s interrogatories, Ramachandran identified

23

eighteen medical care providers she has seen in the last ten years. Although defendant

24

subpoenaed every single one of them for records dating from about eighteen months prior to her

25

employment at Accenture, it has since narrowed the list of subpoenaed providers. Defendant

26

also agreed to withdraw its requests for certain categories of documents, such as photographs,

27

x-rays, billing statements, invoices, receipts, and other documents reflecting payment of

28

expenses incurred for the providers’ services. Plaintiff nevertheless maintains that the

1

subpoenaed records are private and privileged and that defendant’s subpoenas are overbroad.

2

But, if the court permits any discovery of her medical records, she requests leave to review the

3

records first to determine which ones pertain to the health conditions at issue in this lawsuit.

4

The seven health care providers that remain at issue in Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR)

5

No. 2 are as follows:

6

•

Dr. Julia Mynt is plaintiff’s primary care physician. Plaintiff testified that she

7

saw Dr. Mynt for emotional distress at work, as well as for physical symptoms

8

(i.e., asthma, rash, constant nervousness, and hair falling out) she says she

9

suffered as a result of Accenture’s conduct. Plaintiff also saw Dr. Mynt for

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

regular checkups and other medical care.
•

Dr. Tali Bashour is a cardiologist. Plaintiff testified that she saw Dr. Bashour,

12

at Dr. Mynt’s suggestion, because she was experiencing shortness of breath, high

13

blood pressure, and arrhythmia.

14

•

15
16

Accenture’s conduct.
•

17
18

•

23
24

Lody Cura provided plaintiff with psychological counseling during the relevant
time period.

•

21
22

Dr. Svensson provided plaintiff with psychological counseling during the
relevant time period.

19
20

Dr. Divya is a dermatologist that plaintiff saw for a rash that she attributes to

Mills Peninsula Hospital provided plaintiff with psychological counseling
during the relevant time period.

•

Charlotte McCall provided plaintiff with psychological counseling during the
relevant time period.

The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. CIV. L.R. 7-

25

1(b). Upon consideration of the parties’ respective arguments, the court grants in part and

26

denies in part Accenture’s request for discovery.

27
28

Inasmuch as the parties continued to meet-and-confer (as the court expects reasonable
parties to do), the court declines Accenture’s invitation to reject plaintiff’s arguments outright,
2

1

notwithstanding defendant’s argument that plaintiff did not act in a timely manner to quash the

2

subpoenas or seek a protective order.

3

In civil cases, “state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state

4

law supplies the rule of decision.” FED. R. EVID. 501. Under California law, any confidential

5

communication between a patient and her treating physician or psychotherapist is privileged

6

from disclosure. CAL. EVID. CODE § 990, et seq.,§ 1010, et seq. However, California also

7

recognizes a “patient-litigant” exception to these privileges for communications relevant to an

8

issue concerning the patient’s condition, if such an issue has been tendered by the patient. CAL.

9

EVID. CODE §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Super. Ct., 20 Cal.3d 844, 862-63 (1978). “‘When the
patient himself discloses those ailments by bring an action in which they are in issue, there is no

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

longer any reason for the privilege.’” In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal.3d 415, 434, 467 P.2d 557, 569, 85

12

Cal. Rptr. 829 (1970) (quoting City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Super. Ct., 37 Cal.2d 227, 232,

13

231 P.2d, 26, 28 (1951)).

14

A party seeking discovery of private information must demonstrate a compelling need

15

for the discovery that outweighs the privacy right. Lantz v. Super. Ct., 28 Cal. App.4th 1839,

16

1853-54, 34 Cal. Rptr.2d 358, 366-67 (1994). An implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional

17

right of privacy extends only to discovery that is directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and

18

essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Id. at 1854; 34 Cal. Rptr.2d at 367 (citing Vinson

19

v. Super. Ct., 43 Cal.3d 833, 842, 740 P.2d 404, 411, 239 Cal. Rptr. 292 (1987)).

20

Here, plaintiff alleges that Accenture’s conduct caused “severe mental and emotional

21

distress and discomfort.” (Complaint ¶¶ 30, 35, 40, 42-47, 52). Additionally, in deposition she

22

testified to physical symptoms of asthma, rash, constant nervousness, hair falling out, shortness

23

of breath, high blood pressure, and arrhythmia. She has put her mental condition and these

24

physical ailments at issue.

25

Having considered competing legitimate interests and possible prejudice, the court will

26

permit Accenture to obtain documents from each of the above-identified seven providers.

27

However, the following limits shall apply. The earliest records to be produced to defendant

28

shall coincide with the start of plaintiff’s employment at Accenture. Additionally, plaintiff will
3

1

be permitted to first review Dr. Mynt’s subpoenaed records for those that pertain to her mental

2

condition and to the physical symptoms described above. Within 10 days from the date of this

3

order, plaintiff shall review those records and produce to Accenture all relevant records from

4

Dr. Mynt.

5

As for the remaining six providers, plaintiff’s request for a production preview is denied,

indicates that plaintiff saw these providers for conditions she attributes to defendants. The court

8

is unpersuaded by plaintiff’s argument that Dr. Divya’s records are off-limits because plaintiff

9

is not qualified to say whether her rash was caused by Accenture. Plaintiff testified that it was,

10

so Dr. Divya’s records shall be produced. Moreover, plaintiff’s request to limit production of

11
For the Northern District of California

and the subpoenaed records shall be promptly produced directly to Accenture. The record

7

United States District Court

6

her psychological records to those relating solely to Accenture is denied. Plaintiff suggests that

12

her psychological records might contain information that does not relate to claimed distress

13

caused by Accenture. One of Accenture’s defenses, however, is that plaintiff’s claimed mental

14

and emotional distress was caused by alternate stressors. In DDJR No. 1, this court was told

15

that discovery revealed other events and circumstances that may have caused or contributed to

16

plaintiff’s claimed distress. Plaintiff cannot fairly claim to have suffered “severe mental and

17

emotional distress” because of Accenture’s conduct, but shield from discovery information

18

showing that her claimed distress actually was caused by other events.

19
20

Additionally, to give defendant’s experts time to review the subpoenaed materials, the
case schedule will be modified as follows:

21

Designation of Experts with Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 15, 2013

22

Designation of Rebuttal Experts with Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 15, 2013

23

Expert Discovery Cutoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 15, 2013

24

Last Day for Hearing on Dispositive Motions . . . . . . . November 26, 2013, 10:00 a.m.

25

Final Pretrial Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 13, 2014, 1:30 p.m.

26

SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: July 29, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD

28

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

1

5:12-cv-04834-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Christopher R. LeClerc

3

Christopher Robert Le Clerc

4

Courtney Bohl

5

G. Daniel Newland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

6

Robert Brian Wong

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7

Stephen F. Danz

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5