Munoz v. Social Security Administration et al
Filing
55
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 52 Ex Parte Motion For Determination of Discovery Dispute. Plaintiff must supplement any responses identified herein by 5/11/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 4/26/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
GILBERTO G. MUNOZ
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
14
Defendants.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 10cv1003 MMA (NLS)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR
DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE
[Doc. No. 52]
Defendant Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Defendant)
17
filed this ex parte application asking the court to determine a discovery dispute. While the parties met
18
and conferred and initially attempted to draft this as a joint motion, pro se Plaintiff Gilberto Munoz
19
ultimately fell out of contact with Defendant’s counsel. Defendant then filed this application ex parte
20
application. The court ordered Munoz to file an opposition, and took the matter under submission.
21
Relevant Background.
22
In the First Amended Complaint (FAC), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant asked him to disclose
23
the nature of his medical illness in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
24
§12112. FAC ¶¶ 7, 9. He says Defendant engaged in this practice even though such an inquiry was not
25
justified by business necessity, as required by the ADA. FAC ¶ 9. In requesting medical leave from
26
work, Plaintiff had produced “doctor notes” from Sharp Medical Centers indicating that he had medical
27
appointments but that did not contain any medical information, such as diagnoses. Id. In November
28
2008, Plaintiff called in sick to work due to an illness and began to receive frequent medical attention.
1
10-cv-1003 MMA NLS
1
FAC ¶ 10. Defendant told Plaintiff that its policy required the doctor’s note to state the nature of his
2
medical illness that required him to be gone from work, or the absence would be deemed unexcused. Id.
3
Plaintiff continued to receive medical care and provide doctor notes that verified the need for an
4
absence but that did not state the nature of the illness. FAC ¶ 11. Defendant then told Plaintiff that the
5
doctor’s notes were unacceptable because they did not state the nature of the illness, in violation of the
6
SSA’s policy. FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiff objected to this policy. FAC ¶¶ 13-14. Defendant then terminated
7
Plaintiff, who alleges that such termination was in retaliation for his objecting to the policy on medical
8
notes. FAC ¶ 15. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for past and future economic losses and
9
pain and suffering. FAC, p.5.
10
In this motion to compel, Defendant asks for further responses to interrogatories and requests for
11
production that relate to these categories: (a) Plaintiff’s medical status or “alleged impairment;” (b)
12
discrimination claim on the basis of a disability; (c) current employment and duties; (d) efforts to
13
mitigate damages; (e) expenses incurred by Plaintiff in relation to this action; and (f) claims for
14
monetary compensation.
15
Discussion.
16
Rule 26 provides the scope of discovery:
17
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense . . . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
18
19
20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v.
21
City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the
22
burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter,
23
the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the
24
burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794 at *1
25
(S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). Those opposing discovery are “required to carry a heavy burden of showing”
26
why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F. 2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975);
27
WebSideStory, Inc. v. NetRatings, Inc., 2007 WL 1120567, *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 06, 2007).
28
///
2
10-cv-1003 MMA NLS
1
2
3
1.
(a) Medical Information (ROGs 1, 12 and RFP 12); (b) Discrimination Claim
(ROGs 1, 6-10, 24 and RFPs 16-17); and (c) Duties and Functions of Current
Position (ROGs 17-18).
Defendant argues that knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical condition is relevant because Plaintiff
4
placed his alleged impairment at issue by bringing a discrimination claim based upon a disability.
5
Defendant says that to make such a claim, Plaintiff must show he has a disability under the ADA, and
6
Defendant must know about Plaintiff’s medical condition so that it can verify whether he is impaired
7
under the ADA. In contrast, Plaintiff argues this case is not about his medical condition but about
8
Defendant’s subjection of Plaintiff to unlawful employment practices by requiring the disclosure of
9
confidential medical information. He points out that under the ADA, an employer shall not ask an
10
employee whether that employee has a disability, or inquire as to the nature and extent of a disability,
11
unless such inquiry is job-related or required by business necessity. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).
12
Plaintiff argues that this language applies to all employees, not just to those with disabilities.
13
In the Ninth Circuit, a requirement that an employee give his or her employer a general diagnosis
14
to justify a request for sick leave is impermissible because it may tend to reveal a disability. EEOC v.
15
Dillard’s, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16945, *14-*15, 25 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1610 (S.D. Cal.
16
2012) (citing Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 582 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009)). In this district,
17
an attendance policy, that on its face, allows supervisors to ask about the nature of a medical absence
18
and the condition being treated, is prohibited because it could result in an “impermissible disability-
19
related inquir[y].” Dillard’s, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *15. These questions are prohibited under ADA
20
§12112 because they could “elicit information regarding an actual or perceived disability.” Id. Here,
21
the crux of the FAC is whether Defendant unlawfully inquired into the nature of Plaintiff’s medical
22
illness. The court finds that Plaintiff’s actual medical information is not relevant to the claims or
23
defenses in this case, as the nature of the illness is irrelevant to whether asking about it was unlawful. If
24
such questioning is prohibited in the work setting, there is no support for its disclosure in litigation
25
regarding the propriety of that questioning.
26
Further, while such questioning may be allowed if the inquiry is job-related or required by
27
business necessity, the employer had the burden to prove such circumstances. Fredenburg v. Contra
28
Costa County, 172 F.3d 1176, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 1999). Evidence of that defense includes “evidence
3
10-cv-1003 MMA NLS
1
that showed the employee’s excessive absenteeism, poor job performance, low productivity, and the
2
employer’s state of mind when it decided to ask the employee to submit to a medical examination.”
3
Ord. Denying Mot. Dismiss FAC, p. 6 (citing Yin v. State of Cal., 95 F.3d 864, 867-868 (9th Cir. 1996)).
4
Defendant has not met its burden to show that Plaintiff’s medical information is needed due to job
5
related or business necessity reasons. Further, that burden will not be met by addressing the nature of
6
Plaintiff’s medical issues.
7
Regarding the duties and functions of Plaintiff’s current position, Defendant argues that how he
8
performs his current job on a daily basis is relevant to Plaintiff’s abilities to perform while he worked
9
for Defendant. But Plaintiff’s ability to perform his current duties and whether he does so with any
10
accommodations are not relevant to whether Defendant unlawfully inquired into the nature of Plaintiff’s
11
illness.
12
13
The court DENIES without prejudice the motion to compel further responses to these
discovery requests.
14
2.
Plaintiff’s (d) Mitigation Efforts (ROG 21 and RFP 3) and (e) Expenses Incurred
(RFPs 2, 7).
15
16
Defendant seeks information on Plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate damages in this action, including
17
efforts to secure employment following his termination. Plaintiff does not oppose this request. Based
18
on Plaintiff’s claim for past and future damages, the court finds this information relevant and GRANTS
19
the motion to compel further responses to these requests.
20
Defendant also seeks additional documents regarding Plaintiff’s claims for expenses. So far,
21
Plaintiff provided receipts for his civil filing fee and process servers, a copy of the federal GS scale and
22
his W2 for 2011. Plaintiff does not oppose the request and told Defendant that he would provide a copy
23
of the pay scale for his current position and documentation showing he is under the care of a
24
psychiatrist. The court finds that these documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for past and future
25
pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. The court GRANTS Defendant’s requests, and orders Plaintiff to
26
either provide the requested documents, or state that he does not have any further documents to support
27
his claim for these damages.
28
///
4
10-cv-1003 MMA NLS
1
3.
(f) Overly Broad Responses (RFPs 1, 4, 6, 14-15, 18-21).
2
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses to these requests for production fail to describe the
3
documents with sufficient specificity. In his responses Plaintiff either referred Defendant to a range of
4
over 300 pages or to a CD provided to Plaintiff that has over 700 pages on it. Plaintiff says that the CD
5
provided to him with over 700 pages contains many repetitive documents, and that it creates an undue
6
burden for him to review all those pages to identify the responsive documents. He asks the court to
7
order Defendant to provide a new CD to Plaintiff that omits all the repetitive documents.
8
9
The court is not persuaded that reviewing 700 pages to answer several requests for production is
an undue burden. Plaintiff brought this suit, and many of the documents at issue relate to his own
10
communications, such that he is in a better position than Defendant to identify the responsive
11
documents. The court GRANTS Defendant’s request to supplement these responses with further
12
specificity, and orders Plaintiff to amend his responses and specifically identify the documents
13
responsive to these requests for production.
14
Conclusion.
15
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s ex
16
parte motion for determination of a discovery dispute. Plaintiff must supplement any responses
17
identified here no later than May 11, 2012.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 26, 2012
20
21
22
Hon. Nita L. Stormes
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
10-cv-1003 MMA NLS
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?