Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06744/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06744-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LION RAISINS , INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY )

COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

1:03cv6744 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Document 59)

On October 28, 2005, Plaintiff Lion Raisins, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the present motion to

compel production of documents. The motion was heard on January 13, 2006, before the

Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Attorney Frances E. Rogers

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Attorney San-Chuen Lau appeared on behalf of Defendant

Connecticut Indemnity Company (“CIC”). 

BACKGROUND

This litigation arises out of a workers’ compensation policy issued to Plaintiff CIC. 

Plaintiff alleges that CIC improperly handled at least 16 claims of injured employees by failing to

promptly and properly investigate the claims and failing to properly control the and medical

expenses to avoid unnecessary increases to Plaintiff’s future premiums. Plaintiff contends that

these actions constituted fraudulent conduct, breach of contract, and bad faith.

The discovery at issue involves medical records in the claim files for certain employee

claims. Plaintiff requested the claim files of the employees, to which CIC responded by

Case 1:03-cv-06744-OWW -DLB Document 95 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 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

2

producing approximately 15,000 documents, along with a privilege log identifying the disputed

medical information as privileged “personal, confidential and private medical information.” 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides:

1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence,

description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or

other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of

any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any

matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the

limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(I), (ii), and (iii).

Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 26(b)(1).

The resolution of this issue turns on the Court’s reading of California Labor Code section

3762, which prohibits disclosure of medical information of an employee who has filed a workers’

compensation claim, except as follows:

(1) Medical information limited to the diagnosis of the mental or physical

condition for which workers' compensation is claimed and the treatment provided

for this condition.

(2) Medical information regarding the injury for which workers' compensation is

claimed that is necessary for the employer to have in order for the employer to

modify the employee's work duties.

Cal. Labor Code, § 3762(c).

Defendant withholds the documents at issue based on the belief that Section 3762

prohibits their disclosure, a belief that results from a very literal reading of the statute. 

According to Defendant, any document that doesn’t specifically refer to the diagnosis or

treatment of the injury at issue is prohibited from disclosure.

Contrary to Defendant’s position, a broader reading of “diagnosis” and “treatment” is

more reasonable. Indeed, this view is consistent with the way doctors generally treat their

patients- a diagnosis is not a simple, one-dimensional determination. A diagnosis is obtained by

talking to the patient, examining the patient, and performing tests to either rule out other

possibilities or refine the diagnosis. All of this medical documentation would be related to the

Case 1:03-cv-06744-OWW -DLB Document 95 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 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

3

treatment and diagnosis of the employee’s injury. 

In other words, any documentation included in the treatment provided to an employee in

response to the employee’s report of an injury are documents that relate to the diagnosis and/or

treatment of the employee. The disclosure of this information is not prohibited by Section 3762,

and Defendant is therefore ORDERED to produce medical information that falls within this

category. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 24, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06744-OWW -DLB Document 95 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 3