Alexander v. Boeing Commercial Space Company
Filing
20
ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The court GRANTS Plaintiff Jill Alexander's motion for protective order. Dkt. # 11 . The court also GRANTS Defendant's motion to seal (Dkt. # 12 ), although Boeing must submit additional documents by October 25, 2013, in accordance with this order. (CL)
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
JILL ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
CASE NO. C13-1369RAJ
v.
ORDER
THE BOEING COMPANY,
Defendant.
13
14
I. INTRODUCTION
15
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Jill Alexander’s motion for a
16
protective order and Defendant The Boeing Company’s motion to seal. No one has
17
requested oral argument and the court finds oral argument unnecessary. For the reasons
18
stated herein, the court GRANTS the motion for protective order. Dkt. # 11. The court
19
also GRANTS the motion to seal (Dkt. # 12), although Boeing must submit additional
20
documents by October 25, 2013, in accordance with this order.
21
22
II. BACKGROUND
Ms. Alexander worked at Boeing for about seventeen years, until Boeing fired her
23
this May. Ms. Alexander suffers from chronic migraine headaches, which she contends
24
constitute a disability. She claims not only that Boeing failed to reasonably
25
accommodate her disability, but that it fired her after misleading her about whether she
26
could continue to take medical leave. She sued initially in King County Superior Court,
27
28
ORDER – 1
1
invoking the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Washington Family Leave
2
Act. After Boeing removed the case to this court, she added a claim invoking the federal
3
Family and Medical Leave Act.
Discovery began and the parties attempted to negotiate discovery into Ms.
4
5
Alexander’s medical records. Ms. Alexander is willing to permit discovery into her
6
records for the five years before she sued in July; Boeing wants records reaching back ten
7
years. The parties could not resolve their impasse, and Boeing last month issued notices
8
of its intent to issue subpoenas to nine of Ms. Alexander’s medical providers. Each of
9
those notices advised the targeted provider of Boeing’s intent to subpoena all medical
10
records from 2003 or later. Ms. Alexander moved for a protective order. 1 Boeing relied
11
on some of her medical records in responding to her motion, and has moved to seal those
12
records.
13
Civil litigants are entitled to discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is
14
relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A discovery request
15
need not call for evidence that would be admissible at trial, so long as the request
16
“appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. A
17
party can seek a protective order to limit discovery, which the court may grant if the party
18
demonstrates the need for protection from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
19
undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.
20
3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The burden is upon the party seeking the order to ‘show
21
good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.”).
22
The court must limit discovery where its “burden or expense . . . outweighs its likely
23
benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’
24
25
26
27
28
1
Boeing issued notices of its intent to issue subpoenas in compliance with RCW 70.20.060(1),
which requires notice to a medical provider at least fourteen days in advance of a subpoena. The
court assumes that Boeing has not issued subpoenas, pending the resolution of Ms. Alexander’s
motion for a protective order.
ORDER – 2
1
resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of
2
discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
3
The purpose of Ms. Alexander’s motion is to prevent discovery into her mental
4
health treatment. She declares that she has not received mental health treatment in the
5
past five years, and Boeing does not dispute her evidence.
6
Boeing contends that older mental health records are relevant based on Ms.
7
Alexander’s employment history. The record reveals that Ms. Alexander intermittently
8
missed work (because of her headaches, in her view) beginning in 2012 and continuing
9
until her termination. For many years prior to 2012, Ms. Alexander’s headaches
10
apparently did not interfere materially with her work at Boeing. Neither Boeing nor Ms.
11
Alexander contend that her headaches caused her to miss any work from 2005 through
12
2011. In 2003 and 2004, however, Boeing permitted Ms. Alexander to take two medical
13
leaves totaling 10 months. Medical records in Ms. Alexander’s personnel file show that
14
she took this leave for a variety of reasons, including her headaches, depression, post-
15
traumatic stress disorder, and more. Those records, plus records that Boeing subpoenaed
16
from its third-party leave administrator, suggest that during that time, at least one medical
17
provider found Ms. Alexander’s headaches and her mental health to be closely related
18
causes of her disabling symptoms. Luschei Decl. (Dkt. # 18) at 18. In Boeing’s view, it
19
is entitled to inquire into her nearly decade-old mental health records because they may
20
help it demonstrate that her more recent absences are also not solely the result of her
21
headaches, but also mental health conditions. The records may also, according to
22
Boeing, help it demonstrate that the emotional distress that Ms. Alexander claims as
23
damages has causes other than Boeing’s conduct.
24
The parties’ arguments focus extensively on whether any privilege protects Ms.
25
Alexander’s mental health records, arguments that turn in part on choice-of-law issues
26
arising from Ms. Alexander’s mixed federal- and state-law claims. For reasons that the
27
28
ORDER – 3
1
court will soon discuss, the court need not resolve any question of privilege today.
2
Should those issues arise again, Ms. Alexander ought to consider whether any court
3
would permit her to selectively present her medical records when they benefit her (as she
4
has done in her motion) but to claim a privilege preventing Boeing from further inquiring
5
into her medical history.
6
The court can resolve this motion solely by comparing the marginal relevance of
7
the records Boeing seeks against the impact their disclosure would have on Ms.
8
Alexander. As to the latter consideration, no one seriously questions that the exposure of
9
mental health treatment records is not to be taken lightly.
10
As to relevance, Ms. Alexander has properly questioned how the records Boeing
11
seeks will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court assumes for purposes
12
of this motion that Boeing has demonstrated that Ms. Alexander’s leaves of absence in
13
2003 and 2004 were due not only to her headaches, but to her mental health. Boeing is
14
free to speculate that her more recent absences from work have the same causes, but on
15
this record, that is ungrounded speculation. Boeing points to no current evidence that
16
Ms. Alexander is suffering from a mental health condition. It does not contest that she
17
has not received mental health treatment in at least five years. It offers no opinion from a
18
qualified medical professional that there is reason to suspect a current or recent mental
19
health condition. The supposition of lawyers is no substitute for medical opinion.
20
Like virtually all employment-law plaintiffs, Ms. Alexander seeks damages for
21
emotional distress as a result of her treatment by Boeing. Boeing is entitled to inquire
22
into whether her emotional distress results from other causes (like a mental health
23
condition) that she cannot attribute to Boeing. But on this record, an inquiry into mental
24
health records that are more than a decade old is too far afield from an inquiry into the
25
causes of her more recent emotional distress.
26
27
28
ORDER – 4
1
The court will not permit Boeing to seek discovery of medical records from more
2
than five years prior to the date Ms. Alexander sued. No one should misconstrue this
3
prohibition on discovery of medical records as a prohibition on making inquiries into Ms.
4
Alexander’s mental health, even inquiries that stretch back as far as a decade. Boeing
5
may, for example, ask Ms. Alexander appropriate questions at a deposition about her
6
mental health, including her mental health in 2004. Should those questions, or other
7
discovery, reveal a better reason for obtaining old medical records, Boeing may revisit
8
the issue.
9
Both parties request that the court award attorney fees for bringing (or in Boeing’s
10
case, opposing) this motion. The court must award attorney fees to a party who
11
successfully moves for a protective order, unless that party failed to meet and confer in
12
good faith before filing the motion, the opposing party’s position was “substantially
13
justified,” or other circumstances make such an award unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P.
14
37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3) (declaring that with respect to a
15
motion for a protective order, “Rule 37(a)(5) applies to the award of expenses”).
16
Although it is a close question, the court declines to award Ms. Alexander attorney
17
fees. Boeing had at least a colorable argument that Ms. Alexander’s old medical records
18
were relevant. Ms. Alexander, moreover, focused her argument in favor of protecting the
19
older records on a dubious assertion or privilege, rather than the relevance of the
20
documents Boeing sought. The court encourages both parties to improve their
21
communication about discovery issues, with the hope of avoiding motions like these. For
22
now, the court will not impose fees.
23
Finally, the court turns to Boeing’s motion to seal. It asks the court to seal two
24
exhibits consisting of medical records from Ms. Alexander’s personnel file and records
25
from its leave administrator that reveal medical information about Ms. Alexander. That
26
motion was an appropriate recognition of Ms. Alexander’s right to present arguments in
27
28
ORDER – 5
1
favor of sealing documents, and the court rejects Ms. Alexander’s contention that Boeing
2
did something improper by informing her that only the court could decide whether the
3
documents would remain under seal. Boeing did nothing but restate portions of this
4
District’s local rules, which make clear that the parties’ stipulation alone is no basis to
5
keep a document under seal. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g), 26(c)(2).
6
The local rules, specifically LCR 5(g), acknowledge the “strong presumption of
7
public access to the court’s files.” LCR 5(g). For a non-dispositive motion like this one,
8
a party need only show “good cause” for maintaining a document under seal. Kamakana
9
v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Even though Ms.
10
Alexander did not respond to the motion to seal, the court finds good cause to seal the
11
two exhibits to Boeing’s declarations that contain Ms. Alexander’s medical records. Ms.
12
Alexander’s motion, in which she decried what she anticipated would be Boeing’s
13
decision to file some of her old medical records, suffices to demonstrate the impact of
14
disclosure of those records.
15
Boeing did not follow the portion of the court’s local rules that requires it to
16
separate documents filed under sealed from documents that do not require protection.
17
LCR 5(g)(4). It filed two entire declarations under seal, even though only single exhibit
18
to each of those motions was the subject of its motion to seal. It also filed its entire
19
opposition to Ms. Alexander’s motion for protective order under seal, rather than merely
20
redacting sensitive information and filing separate redacted and sealed versions of the
21
opposition. LCR 5(g)(5). The court will keep each of these three documents under seal,
22
but Boeing must file new documents that comply with the local rules. It must file a
23
separate redacted version of its motion to seal. It must also publicly file versions of each
24
of its declarations, eliminating only the exhibits that the court has permitted to be sealed,
25
in accordance with court rules.
26
27
28
ORDER – 6
1
Should the parties’ future submissions to the court require them to move to seal
2
some documents, the court expects them both to comply with LCR 5(g). The court will
3
consider sanctions for any party who does not comply.
4
5
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS the motion for protective order.
6
Dkt. # 11. Boeing may not obtain discovery of any medical records (including records of
7
mental health treatment) that predate the filing of this lawsuit by more than five years.
8
9
10
The court GRANTS Boeing’s motion to seal (Dkt. # 12), but orders Boeing to
publicly file the three documents described in this order no later than October 25, 2013.
DATED this 18th day of October, 2013.
11
A
12
13
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 7
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?