Ruiz-Camacho v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
ORDER Re: 30 Request for Guidance as to Authorizations. Defendant has until 1/19/2018 to submit amended authorizations to Plaintiff specifically exempting gynecological records and laboratory tests from disclosure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 1/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et
REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE REGARDING
AUTHORIZATIONS [ECF NO. 30]
On January 5, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation to amend the discovery schedule in this
case. (ECF No. 30). Parties also requested guidance from the Court regarding proposed authorizations to
disclose Plaintiff’s medical information. (Id. at 2-3). These authorizations cover Plaintiff’s entire medical
record or file starting at November 1, 2007 from various sources. (ECF No. 30-1).1 Plaintiff argued that
Defendant’s proposed authorizations were too broad and would cover irrelevant information. (ECF No.
30 at 2-3). Defendants argued that the medical information would “bear on plaintiff’s injury claim as well
as her economic and/or wage loss claim.” (Id. at 3).
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The scope of
discovery is generally broad and covers evidence that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of California, 511 F.2d 192, 196
(9th Cir. 1975) (quoting Olympic Refining Company v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 266 (9th Cir. 1964)).
ECF No. 30-1 also contains an “Authorization to Release Educational Information and Records,” which this Order does not
discuss, as it was not mentioned by either party in the stipulation.
Plaintiff’s medical information is relevant to her injury and wage loss claims. Information relating
to pre-existing, mental health, and drug-related conditions and other sicknesses or illnesses will bear on
Plaintiff’s ability to work. Though some insurance records may implicate the collateral source rule, that
is not a basis to bar their discovery.
Plaintiff argues that specific medical information relating to gynecological records and laboratory
tests are not relevant to this case. (ECF No. 30 at 2). The Court finds on the current record that Plaintiff’s
gynecological records are not relevant to claims or defenses asserted in the case, and Defendant has failed
to provide a basis for obtaining detailed laboratory results at this stage in the proceedings. To the extent
that Defendant’s proposed authorizations cover this information, the Court concludes that the
authorizations are too broad.
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant has until January 19, 2018 to submit amended authorizations to
Plaintiff specifically exempting gynecological records and laboratory tests from disclosure.
DATED this 9th day of January, 2018.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?