Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05241/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05241-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANN LEMBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-05241-JSC 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 114

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to complete a release for medical records held by 

The Hand Center of San Francisco relating to any treatment Plaintiff may have received from Dr. 

Patrick Lang is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 114.) Having considered the parties’ 

submissions the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), 

VACATES the March 7, 2019 hearing, and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel.

Although Plaintiff executed a release for the at-issue records when present in Court on 

January 17, 2019, Plaintiff has since informed Defendant that she is withdrawing her release. 

Plaintiff appears to now contend that she consulted with Dr. Lang as a potential expert such that 

any communications would be privileged. (Dtk. No. 120.) However, Plaintiff’s statement that she 

consulted Dr. Lang as a potential expert is contradicted by the January 8, 2019 letter she wrote to 

Dr. Lang which is attached to Defendant’s motion. (Dkt. No. 115-1.) In that letter, Plaintiff states 

that she “saw [Dr. Lang] for a consultation many months ago and clearly explained I suffered a 

debilitating injury from a crush accident at Chase Bank... [and that she] was seen emergently and 

afterwards.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s opposition brief does not address this letter and instead insists 

that Dr. Lang did not take measurements and did not chart or evaluate her hand in any formal way 

as any other professional hand surgeon would have. (Dkt. No. 120.) Plaintiff concludes that she 

Case 3:17-cv-05241-JSC Document 125 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

should not have to disclose “privileged information” from Dr. Lang. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff, however, has failed to establish that her records with Dr. Lang are privileged. 

First, Plaintiff’s letter suggests that she saw Dr. Lang as a treating physician and not as an expert. 

In personal injury cases such as this, a plaintiff is required to disclose relevant medical records 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). Second, Plaintiff’s treatment records with Dr. Lang 

would only be subject to a claim of privilege if she “retained or specially employed” him under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4). Plaintiff, however, has not disclosed Dr. Lang as either 

a retained or specially employed expert. As such, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that her 

records with Dr. Lang are subject to a claim of privilege.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 114.) On or before 

March 7, 2019, Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with a medical records release akin to that she 

previously executed on January 17, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-05241-JSC Document 125 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 2