Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01003/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01003-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERTO G. MUNOZ

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv1003 MMA (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

[Doc. No. 52]

Defendant Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Defendant)

filed this ex parte application asking the court to determine a discovery dispute. While the parties met

and conferred and initially attempted to draft this as a joint motion, pro se Plaintiff Gilberto Munoz

ultimately fell out of contact with Defendant’s counsel. Defendant then filed this application ex parte

application. The court ordered Munoz to file an opposition, and took the matter under submission.

Relevant Background.

In the First Amended Complaint (FAC), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant asked him to disclose

the nature of his medical illness in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.

§12112. FAC ¶¶ 7, 9. He says Defendant engaged in this practice even though such an inquiry was not

justified by business necessity, as required by the ADA. FAC ¶ 9. In requesting medical leave from

work, Plaintiff had produced “doctor notes” from Sharp Medical Centers indicating that he had medical

appointments but that did not contain any medical information, such as diagnoses. Id. In November

2008, Plaintiff called in sick to work due to an illness and began to receive frequent medical attention. 

1 10-cv-1003 MMA NLS

Case 3:10-cv-01003-MMA-NLS Document 55 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 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

FAC ¶ 10. Defendant told Plaintiff that its policy required the doctor’s note to state the nature of his

medical illness that required him to be gone from work, or the absence would be deemed unexcused. Id.

Plaintiff continued to receive medical care and provide doctor notes that verified the need for an

absence but that did not state the nature of the illness. FAC ¶ 11. Defendant then told Plaintiff that the

doctor’s notes were unacceptable because they did not state the nature of the illness, in violation of the

SSA’s policy. FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiff objected to this policy. FAC ¶¶ 13-14. Defendant then terminated

Plaintiff, who alleges that such termination was in retaliation for his objecting to the policy on medical

notes. FAC ¶ 15. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for past and future economic losses and

pain and suffering. FAC, p.5.

In this motion to compel, Defendant asks for further responses to interrogatories and requests for

production that relate to these categories: (a) Plaintiff’s medical status or “alleged impairment;” (b)

discrimination claim on the basis of a disability; (c) current employment and duties; (d) efforts to

mitigate damages; (e) expenses incurred by Plaintiff in relation to this action; and (f) claims for

monetary compensation.

Discussion.

Rule 26 provides the scope of discovery: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party's claim or defense . . . . 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v.

City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the

burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter,

the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the

burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794 at *1

(S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). Those opposing discovery are “required to carry a heavy burden of showing”

why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F. 2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975);

WebSideStory, Inc. v. NetRatings, Inc., 2007 WL 1120567, *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 06, 2007).

/ / /

2 10-cv-1003 MMA NLS

Case 3:10-cv-01003-MMA-NLS Document 55 Filed 04/26/12 Page 2 of 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

1. (a) Medical Information (ROGs 1, 12 and RFP 12); (b) Discrimination Claim

(ROGs 1, 6-10, 24 and RFPs 16-17); and (c) Duties and Functions of Current

Position (ROGs 17-18).

Defendant argues that knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical condition is relevant because Plaintiff

placed his alleged impairment at issue by bringing a discrimination claim based upon a disability. 

Defendant says that to make such a claim, Plaintiff must show he has a disability under the ADA, and

Defendant must know about Plaintiff’s medical condition so that it can verify whether he is impaired

under the ADA. In contrast, Plaintiff argues this case is not about his medical condition but about

Defendant’s subjection of Plaintiff to unlawful employment practices by requiring the disclosure of

confidential medical information. He points out that under the ADA, an employer shall not ask an

employee whether that employee has a disability, or inquire as to the nature and extent of a disability,

unless such inquiry is job-related or required by business necessity. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). 

Plaintiff argues that this language applies to all employees, not just to those with disabilities. 

In the Ninth Circuit, a requirement that an employee give his or her employer a general diagnosis

to justify a request for sick leave is impermissible because it may tend to reveal a disability. EEOC v.

Dillard’s, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16945, *14-*15, 25 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1610 (S.D. Cal.

2012) (citing Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 582 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009)). In this district,

an attendance policy, that on its face, allows supervisors to ask about the nature of a medical absence

and the condition being treated, is prohibited because it could result in an “impermissible disabilityrelated inquir[y].” Dillard’s, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *15. These questions are prohibited under ADA

§12112 because they could “elicit information regarding an actual or perceived disability.” Id. Here,

the crux of the FAC is whether Defendant unlawfully inquired into the nature of Plaintiff’s medical

illness. The court finds that Plaintiff’s actual medical information is not relevant to the claims or

defenses in this case, as the nature of the illness is irrelevant to whether asking about it was unlawful. If

such questioning is prohibited in the work setting, there is no support for its disclosure in litigation

regarding the propriety of that questioning.

Further, while such questioning may be allowed if the inquiry is job-related or required by

business necessity, the employer had the burden to prove such circumstances. Fredenburg v. Contra

Costa County, 172 F.3d 1176, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 1999). Evidence of that defense includes “evidence

3 10-cv-1003 MMA NLS

Case 3:10-cv-01003-MMA-NLS Document 55 Filed 04/26/12 Page 3 of 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

that showed the employee’s excessive absenteeism, poor job performance, low productivity, and the

employer’s state of mind when it decided to ask the employee to submit to a medical examination.” 

Ord. Denying Mot. Dismiss FAC, p. 6 (citing Yin v. State of Cal., 95 F.3d 864, 867-868 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

Defendant has not met its burden to show that Plaintiff’s medical information is needed due to job

related or business necessity reasons. Further, that burden will not be met by addressing the nature of

Plaintiff’s medical issues.

Regarding the duties and functions of Plaintiff’s current position, Defendant argues that how he

performs his current job on a daily basis is relevant to Plaintiff’s abilities to perform while he worked

for Defendant. But Plaintiff’s ability to perform his current duties and whether he does so with any

accommodations are not relevant to whether Defendant unlawfully inquired into the nature of Plaintiff’s

illness.

The court DENIES without prejudice the motion to compel further responses to these

discovery requests.

2. Plaintiff’s (d) Mitigation Efforts (ROG 21 and RFP 3) and (e) Expenses Incurred

(RFPs 2, 7).

Defendant seeks information on Plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate damages in this action, including

efforts to secure employment following his termination. Plaintiff does not oppose this request. Based

on Plaintiff’s claim for past and future damages, the court finds this information relevant and GRANTS

the motion to compel further responses to these requests.

Defendant also seeks additional documents regarding Plaintiff’s claims for expenses. So far,

Plaintiff provided receipts for his civil filing fee and process servers, a copy of the federal GS scale and

his W2 for 2011. Plaintiff does not oppose the request and told Defendant that he would provide a copy

of the pay scale for his current position and documentation showing he is under the care of a

psychiatrist. The court finds that these documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for past and future

pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. The court GRANTS Defendant’s requests, and orders Plaintiff to

either provide the requested documents, or state that he does not have any further documents to support

his claim for these damages.

/ / /

4 10-cv-1003 MMA NLS

Case 3:10-cv-01003-MMA-NLS Document 55 Filed 04/26/12 Page 4 of 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

3. (f) Overly Broad Responses (RFPs 1, 4, 6, 14-15, 18-21).

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses to these requests for production fail to describe the

documents with sufficient specificity. In his responses Plaintiff either referred Defendant to a range of

over 300 pages or to a CD provided to Plaintiff that has over 700 pages on it. Plaintiff says that the CD

provided to him with over 700 pages contains many repetitive documents, and that it creates an undue

burden for him to review all those pages to identify the responsive documents. He asks the court to

order Defendant to provide a new CD to Plaintiff that omits all the repetitive documents.

The court is not persuaded that reviewing 700 pages to answer several requests for production is

an undue burden. Plaintiff brought this suit, and many of the documents at issue relate to his own

communications, such that he is in a better position than Defendant to identify the responsive

documents. The court GRANTS Defendant’s request to supplement these responses with further

specificity, and orders Plaintiff to amend his responses and specifically identify the documents

responsive to these requests for production.

Conclusion.

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s ex

parte motion for determination of a discovery dispute. Plaintiff must supplement any responses

identified here no later than May 11, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2012

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

5 10-cv-1003 MMA NLS

Case 3:10-cv-01003-MMA-NLS Document 55 Filed 04/26/12 Page 5 of 5