Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02532/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02532-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Wrongful Death

---

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

IN RE: YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK 

HANTAVIRUS LITIGATION

Case No. 14-md-02532-MMC (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 157, 158

Currently pending before the Court are the parties' joint discovery letter briefs (Dkt. Nos. 

157, 158.) The Court deems the matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b). Having reviewed the papers filed by the parties and the relevant legal 

authority, the Court resolves the parties' discovery disputes as set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Carolyn Garisto and Estate of Bruno Garisto ("Garisto Plaintiffs"); Rupal Badani, 

Estate of Amit Jha, M.J., and K.J. ("Badani Plaintiffs"); Cathy Carrillo; Roger Mann and Sherrie 

Mann ("Mann Plaintiffs"); and Christopher Harrison and Felicia Tornabene ("Harrison/Tornabene 

Plaintiffs") bring the instant suit against Defendants Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts 

at Yosemite, Inc., Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts, Inc., and Delaware North 

Companies, Inc. (collectively "DNC"); Yosemite Construction, Inc. and Bradley Popp 

(collectively "Yosemite Construction"); and the United States of America.

Hantavirus is a lethal virus that is transmitted through the air, and there is an increased risk 

of infection when there is a high level of deer mice and their feces, urine, and saliva in an area. 

(Consolidated Compl. ¶ 31, Dkt. No. 139.) The instant case concerns an outbreak of Hantavirus in 

Yosemite National Park in the summer of 2012, which infected ten people and resulted in three 

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 9
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

fatalities. (Consolidated Compl. ¶ 32.) Nine of these ten people, including Plaintiffs, contracted 

Hantavirus in the "Signature Tent Cabins" in Yosemite's Curry Village. (Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 

69-73, 81.) The Signature Tents used a double-wall design, even after a prototype double-walled 

tent was allegedly found to be "infested with mice" and constituted a "health hazard." 

(Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 48, 50.) Despite that, Defendants approved the use of the double-walled 

design for the Signature Tent Cabins, which were built in 2009. (Consolidated Compl. ¶ 51.) 

Prior to the summer of 2012, there were also several reports and complaints about rodent 

infestations at Curry Village. (Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 58, 60-63.) Additionally, in June and July 

2012, the California Department of Public Health assessed studies revealing a significant density 

of Hantavirus-infected rodents in Yosemite, and recommended that educational brochures be 

posted throughout Yosemite. (Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 59.) Despite these reports, Defendants did 

not take corrective measures, such as developing a comprehensive Hantavirus policy or following 

rodent control and abatement plans. (Consolidated Compl. ¶¶ 63-67.)

On April 13, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the operative Master Consolidated Complaint, alleging 

the following causes of action: (1) wrongful death (Garisto and Badani Plaintiffs), (2) survival 

(Garisto and Badani Plaintiffs), (3) negligence, (4) strict product liability, (5) violations of the 

California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Mann Plaintiffs), (6) fraud and concealment, (7) 

premises liability, (8) loss of consortium (Garisto Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Sherrie Mann, Plaintiff 

Felicia Tornabene), (9) breach of warranty, (10) failure to warn, (11) negligent infliction of 

emotional distress (Garisto Plaintiffs), and (12) civil conspiracy (Garisto Plaintiffs).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's 

claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the 

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant 

information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The "[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable." Id.

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 9
3

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

Rule 33(a) provides:

(2) Scope. An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into 

under Rule 26(b). An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for 

an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the 

court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated 

discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).

Rule 34(a) provides:

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):

(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to 

inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's 

possession, custody, or control:

(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information--

including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, 

images, and other data or data compilations--stored in any medium from 

which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after 

translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or

(B) any designated tangible things[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).

All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which requires the 

court to limit discovery upon a finding (1) that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive, (2) that the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information sought, or (3) that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 

likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, 

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving 

the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Discovery letter re interrogatories

The parties' first joint letter concerns Defendants' interrogatory seeking medical and 

psychological information, which reads as follows:

IDENTIFY and describe in detail each injury, illness, disease, 

disability, psychological condition, or other physical or mental 

problem, that YOU were diagnosed with or experienced, from age 

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 9
4

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

eighteen to the present. YOUR answer should specify when each 

. . . was first diagnosed, the HEALTHCARE PROVIDER who made 

the diagnosis, its treatment and duration, whether (and if so when 

and where) YOU were hospitalized or institutionalized for it.

(Dkt. No. 157 at 2.)

First, as to Plaintiffs Tornabene and Sherrie Mann, Plaintiffs argue that the Government 

did not submit this interrogatory to them. (Id. at 4, 6.) The parties do not provide the 

interrogatories that were directed to these Plaintiffs, and based on the record before it, the Court 

cannot find that this interrogatory was directed to either of these Plaintiffs. On that basis, the 

Court denies Defendants' request that Plaintiffs respond to this interrogatory.

Second, as to the Garisto Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs argue that they should not be required to 

produce information on mental health records and psychotherapy notes because they are not 

seeking more than a "garden-variety" claim of emotional distress. Federal Rule of Evidence 501 

states that "in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state 

law supplies the rule of decision." In California, when a plaintiff seeks recovery for mental 

injuries, that plaintiff "unquestionably waive[s] their physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient 

privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue." 

Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844, 849 (1978). This waiver of privacy rights to mental health 

records requires "asserting more than a garden-variety claim of emotional distress." Turner v. 

Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 97 (S.D. Cal. 1995); Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 633 

(N.D. Cal. 2003) (no waiver of privacy when plaintiff did not allege "cause of action for 

intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress" or "specific psychiatric injury or unusually 

severe emotional distress extraordinary in light of the allegations").

Here, Plaintiffs contend that the Garisto Plaintiffs only proceed on claims for wrongful 

death, and thus "discovery or disclosure of their psychiatric records is improper." (Dkt. No. 157 at 

5.) The Garisto Plaintiffs' claims, however, are not limited to wrongful death; rather, they are the 

only Plaintiffs to have brought a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, in which they 

assert that they have suffered symptoms including "continued nausea, headaches, hysterical 

attacks, insomnia, severe depression, nightmares, nervousness and stress or anxiety." 

(Consolidated Compl. ¶ 169.) This is far more than a "garden-variety" claim of emotional distress. 

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 4 of 9
5

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

The Garisto Plaintiffs have therefore put their mental health at issue in this lawsuit, and the Court 

grants Defendants' motion to compel a response to this interrogatory.

B. Discovery letter re requests for production

The parties' second joint letter concerns two disputes over Defendants' Requests for 

Production. (Dkt. No. 158.)

i. Income tax returns

The parties' first dispute concerns the following Request for Production:

Produce all copies of any income tax returns for PLAINTIFFS filed 

during the past ten years.

(Id. at 2.) All Plaintiffs have refused to provide tax documentation.

In general, "California recognizes a privilege protecting tax returns from disclosure." 

Young v. United States, 149 F.R.D. 199, 201 (S.D. Cal. 1993). District courts, however, have not 

applied California's privilege in Federal Tort Claims Act cases, but instead found that federal 

privilege law applies to discovery and the admission of evidence in such cases. Id. at 204; see 

also Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-57-WHO, 2013 WL 6057043, at *2 n.3 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (applying California privilege and distinguishing Young because in 

Young, "the plaintiff put her income at issue by seeking 'lost wages' in a Federal Tort Claims Act 

case, as to which the California privilege against forced disclosure of tax returns did not apply"). 

Instead, several courts have found that "federal law recognizes a privilege that protects tax returns 

from disclosure, although that privilege is not absolute." Brady v. Grendene USA Inc., Case No. 

12cv604-GPC(KSC), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97734, at *16 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2015). These 

courts "have formulated a two-prong test for deciding whether to compel the production of tax 

records in discovery." Id.; see also Zuniga v. W. Apartments, CV 13-4637 JFW(JCx), 2014 WL 

2599919, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014) ("Courts generally apply a two-pronged test to assure a 

balance between the liberal scope of discovery and the policy favoring the confidentiality of tax 

returns"). First, the Court looks at whether the tax return is relevant to the subject matter of the 

action. Brady, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97734, at *17. Second, the Court considers whether "there 

is a compelling need for the returns because the information contained therein is not otherwise 

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 5 of 9
6

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

readily obtainable." A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 191 (C.D. Cal. 2006) 

(internal quotation omitted); see also Aliotti v. Vessel Senora, 217 F.R.D. 496, 497-98 (N.D. Cal. 

2003) (applying two-prong test).

The Court finds that the first prong is satisfied in this case. Defendants argue that the tax 

returns are relevant to calculating the amount of lost wages and support at issue in this case

because an award for lost wages should be calculated after appropriate deductions for taxes, and 

Plaintiffs do not contend otherwise. (Dkt. No. 158 at 3-4.) The Court finds that the second prong, 

however, is not satisfied. Plaintiffs asserting a wage loss claim have produced their W-2 forms, 

which state their income and withheld taxes. (Id. at 4.) Defendants have not explained what 

additional information they seek from the tax returns that is not already contained in these W-2 

forms. (See id. at 3.) Absent this explanation, the Court will not compel Plaintiffs to produce 

their tax returns.

ii. Medical and psychological records

The parties' second dispute concerns the following Request for Production:

Produce all DOCUMENTS and ESI, including HEALTHCARE 

PROVIDER RECORDS in YOUR POSSESSION, CUSTODY, or 

CONTROL that REFER or RELATE to any physical or mental 

disease, disorder, disability, or chronic medical condition with 

which either of the PLAINTIFFS has been diagnosed.

(Id. at 2.) 

First, as to Defendants' request for Plaintiff Tornabene's medical records, Plaintiffs argue 

that Defendants have not explained why they require Tornabene's medical records when she is not 

claiming any personal injury. (Id. at 7.) The Court agrees. Defendants state that they seek 

medical records because Plaintiffs have alleged permanent injuries and conditions, and medical 

records revealing pre-existing medical conditions are necessary to determining work and/or life 

expectancy of such Plaintiffs, which in turn goes to calculation of damages. (Id. at 5.) In 

Tornabene's case, however, she does not allege that she herself suffered a permanent injury or 

condition that affects her work and/or life expectancy, as it was her husband who was infected by 

Hantavirus. Without an explanation as to why Defendants require Tornabene's medical records 

specifically, the Court will not compel production of these records.

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 6 of 9
7

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

Second, regarding Defendants' request for the Garisto Plaintiffs' psychiatric records, the 

Court finds that this discovery is permissible. As discussed above, the Garisto Plaintiffs are not 

merely alleging "garden-variety" emotional distress claims, but have brought a claim for negligent 

infliction of emotional distress, including symptoms such as hysterical attacks, severe depression, 

nightmares, and stress. (Consolidated Compl. ¶ 169.) Thus, they have put their mental health at 

issue in this suit, and discovery is appropriate.

Third, as to Plaintiffs Tornabene's1and Sherrie Mann's mental health records, Defendants 

contend that several district courts have deemed the psychotherapist-patient privilege waived by 

loss of consortium claims. (Dkt. No. 158 at 6.) Plaintiffs respond that their records are not 

relevant to their loss of consortium claims as both of these Plaintiffs did not begin to see a

therapist until 2016, nearly four years after the Yosemite events. (Id. at 9.) In general, a loss of 

consortium claim seeks to "compensate a plaintiff for the impairment to his or her marital life 

resulting from the spouse's injury." Aguilar v. Cty. of Fresno, Cal., No. 1:08-cv-1202 AWI GSA, 

2009 WL 3617984, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009). Thus, courts focus on the relationship 

between the plaintiff and his or her spouse, "embrac[ing] such elements as love, companionship, 

comfort, affection, society, sexual relations, the moral support each spouse gives the other through 

the triumph and despair of life, and the deprivation of a spouse's physical assistance in operating 

and maintaining the family home." Ledger v. Tippitt, 164 Cal. App. 3d 625, 633 (1985), 

disapproved on other grounds by Elden v. Sheldon, 46 Cal. 4d 267, 277 (1988). At least one court 

has not permitted discovery into mental health records where a plaintiff only alleges a claim for 

loss of consortium, but does not otherwise assert a cause of action for a specific injury or 

emotional distress, reasoning that such a plaintiff "is seeking to recover damages for that which 

her husband can no longer provide her, not for the emotional distress that such loss may have 

caused." Campbell v. Logue, Civil No. 10-cv-1821-JM (DHB), 2012 WL 1666762, at *3 (S.D. 

 

1

Plaintiffs also contend that the mental health records of Laurel, the Harrison/Tornabene's minor 

daughter, are not discoverable. (Dkt. No. 158 at 9.) Based on the Court's review of the Requests 

for Production, the Requests are not directed at her, and Defendants make no argument that Laurel 

should be required to produce her mental health records. (See Dkt. No. 158, Exh. A at 2 (defining 

"PLAINTIFFS" as Plaintiffs Christopher Harrison and Felicia Tornabene), 10 (requesting medical 

records related to any physical or mental disease that "PLAINTIFFS" have been diagnosed)

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 7 of 9
8

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

Cal. May 11, 2012). Other courts that have permitted discovery have put limits on the permissible 

scope of that discovery, focusing on the relationship between the plaintiff and the decedent. E.g., 

Engert v. Stanislaus Cty., No. 1:13-cv-126 LJO-BAM, 2014 WL 5217301, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 

14, 2014) (allowing discovery of mental health records for the three years preceding the death of 

the plaintiff's husband, but denying discovery of records prior to the three years or after the date of 

death); Prescott v. Cty. of Stanislaus, No. 1:10-cv-592 JLT, 2011 WL 5877013, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 

Nov. 22, 2011) (allowing discovery of mental health records related to the plaintiff's relationship 

with the decedent).

In the instant case, Plaintiffs do not assert claims of emotional distress, and the records 

sought are nearly four years removed from the Yosemite events. While such records could be 

relevant to Tornabene's and Mann's present relationship with their spouses by showing how the 

relationship has changed and therefore affecting the amount of damages, Defendants' request is 

broad and not tailored to records that would actually be relevant to the loss of consortium claim. 

Defendants must provide more information about what is needed and why it is proper for 

discovery, particularly when the current version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer 

authorize Defendants to pursue potential information that might lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. See Gilead Scis. v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-4057-BLF, 2016 WL 

146574, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) ("No longer is it good enough to hope that the 

information sought might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence"). Accordingly, 

Defendants' request for this information is denied.

Finally, with respect to Plaintiff Harrison's psychotherapy notes, the Court finds that this 

discovery is relevant to damages, including his present condition and its effect on his work and/or 

life expectancy. Thus, the Court grants discovery as to these records.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 8 of 9
9

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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Garisto Plaintiffs shall respond to the interrogatories 

and requests for production related to their medical and mental health conditions. Plaintiff 

Harrison shall produce his psychotherapy notes. The remainder of Defendants' requests is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 160 Filed 09/23/16 Page 9 of 9