Goeden v. Darigold, Inc.

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 22 Motion for Protective Order and/or Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
RICHARD GOEDEN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-CV-252-BLW

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

DARIGOLD, INC., a Washington corporation
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it plaintiff Goeden’s motion for protective order and/or to
quash subpoenas. Goeden claims that defendant Darigold’s subpoenas to five of
Goeden’s medical providers seek irrelevant material. After the parties were unable to
reach a mediated settlement of this dispute, the Court directed counsel to file short briefs.
Those briefs have been filed and the matter is at issue. For the reasons explained below,
the Court will deny the motion.
ANALYSIS
In this case, Goeden claims Darigold fired him because of his age and his physical
limitations. He has brought suit under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), among other claims. He seeks back

Memorandum Decision & Order - 1

pay, front pay, and reinstatement.
On December 7, 2011, Darigold served third-party subpoenas on five of Goeden’s
medical providers requesting production of “any and all medical records” without time
restrictions. Darigold has since withdrawn those subpoenas and intends to revise them to
seek medical records only from January 1, 2007 to the present. Darigold has committed
to bear the reasonable cost of production of the medical records.
Goeden has no objection to the discovery of his medical records concerning (1)
both of his shoulders, (2) both knees, and (3) his hearing. But he alleges that medical
records relating to his other ailments “could clearly lead to embarrassment” and are
irrelevant. See Goeden Brief (Dkt. No. 22-1) at 3.
The Court disagrees with Goeden’s claim that the medical records are irrelevant.
Goeden’s work and life expectancy “are pertinent factors in calculating front pay.” See
Gotthardt v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.,191 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 1999).
Goeden’s medical conditions – beyond the narrow confines of his shoulders, knees and
hearing – could affect his work and life expectancy and therefore could affect his claim to
front pay. In other words, Darigold is not engaged in a mere fishing expedition here.
The Court agrees with Goeden that medical records contain highly personal and
sensitive matters. However, he asserts no privilege that would keep these records entirely
hidden from view, and the existing Protective Order will ensure that the records are only
seen by those who have been approved by both sides.
Goeden also argues that Darigold’s request is at least in part duplicative because
Memorandum Decision & Order - 2

he has already committed to producing all his records on his shoulder, knee, and hearing
ailments. Darigold’s request may be duplicative to some degree, but Darigold is paying
for it. Moreover, it is more efficient and cost effective to ask the providers for all medical
records rather than to require them to spend the large amount of time necessary to sift
through all those records and cull out the records relating to shoulders, knees, and
hearing.
For all of these reasons, the Court will deny Goeden’s motion.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for protective
order and/or motion to quash subpoenas (docket no. 22) is DENIED.

DATED: February 22, 2012

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order - 3