Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02405/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02405-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NELIDA PRADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES 

LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-02405-PJH 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Before the court is defendant Equifax Information Services LLC’s (“Equifax”)

objection to Magistrate Judge Beeler’s discovery order. The matter is fully briefed and 

suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully 

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, 

the court hereby rules as follows.

Plaintiff Nelida Prado alleges two causes of action against Equifax: violations of 

(1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and (2) the California 

Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.1 et seq. Compl.

Briefly stated, plaintiff alleges that Equifax merged her credit information together 

with her sister’s information, thereby creating a “mixed file” that inaccurately reported her 

credit history. Compl. ¶¶ 12–15. As a result, Equifax prepared and sold numerous credit 

reports that included both plaintiff’s and her sister’s information. Plaintiff discovered this 

“mixing” error in May 2016, when she obtained her credit report from Equifax. Plaintiff 

unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the issue with Equifax. Equifax supplied plaintiff’s 

creditors with her sister’s credit report, which resulted in plaintiff’s credit limits being 

Case 4:18-cv-02405-PJH Document 51 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 5
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

reduced even though her actual credit history was perfect. Compl. ¶¶ 28–29.

Equifax served the following two relevant discovery requests on plaintiff, and 

plaintiff responded as follows:

[1]

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If you are claiming that you 

suffered any physical harm or symptoms as a result of any act 

or omission by Equifax, please provide a description of the 

physical harm or symptoms, the date(s) you experienced each 

and whether you have taken any medications and/or received 

any medical treatment for each.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Responding 

Party objects as overbroad and burdensome regarding 

providing dates every time Responding Party experienced 

physical harm or symptoms as a result of Equifax’s actions. 

Responding Party understands this interrogatory to be limited 

to physical harm or symptoms rather than emotional, mental, or 

other types of harm. Without waiving the foregoing objections, 

Responding Party suffered headaches, loss of sleep, 

overeating and crying, and took Ibuprofen, Tylenol PM, and 

natural sleep aid tablets for these problems.

[2]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: If you are claiming 

damages based on medical or mental anguish, please produce 

all documents relating or referring to any medical or mental 

treatments you received in the past seven years.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

Responding Party objects on the grounds that the request is 

vague and burdensome as to the terms “medical” and 

“medical... anguish.” Responding Party objects on the grounds 

that the request is overbroad, burdensome, and not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Responding Party further 

objects in that the request seeks documents unrelated to 

Responding Party’s claims against Equifax, and not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Responding Party objects to this request to the extend it 

invades her right to privacy, as guaranteed by Article I, 

Section 1 of the California Constitution, and to the extent it 

seeks documents protected by the doctor-patient privilege.

On December 24, 2018, the parties filed a joint discovery dispute letter brief. 

Dkt. 33. The parties disputed whether plaintiff must produce her medical records based 

on her claims of loss of sleep, headaches, overeating, and crying. Plaintiff described

those symptoms as “garden variety” emotional distress and argued that her privacy 

Case 4:18-cv-02405-PJH Document 51 Filed 02/28/19 Page 2 of 5
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

interests protect her medical records from production. Defendant described the 

symptoms as physical harms that can be used to bolster plaintiff’s emotional distress 

claims, and it argued that the records were relevant to assess whether defendant caused 

the harms or whether they were preexisting.

On January 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Beeler issued an order sustaining plaintiff’s 

objections to producing the requested materials. Dkt. 35. Judge Beeler reasoned that 

because plaintiff alleged only “garden variety” emotional distress, she did not place her 

medical history so at issue as to warrant compelling production of her medical records. 

Id. at 2–3.

On January 17, 2019, defendant filed objections to the magistrate judge’s 

discovery order (Dkt. 38), and on January 28, 2019, this court issued an order setting a 

briefing schedule for the dispute because “[t]he objections concern questions of law 

apparently without controlling Ninth Circuit authority, namely whether plaintiff waived her 

interest in withholding relevant medical records by seeking damages based on mental 

anguish and emotional distress” (Dkt. 39).

On February 22, 2019, plaintiff filed a brief conceding that she seeks damages for 

additional harms, such as back pain, that “go beyond garden variety” emotional distress.

Dkt. 50 at 2. Plaintiff also conceded that her “medical records may be relevant to 

Plaintiff's emotional and physical damages” and offered to “produce all her medical 

records for the relevant time periods . . . with the exception of records related to 

gynecological examinations and brief notations in her medical history regarding sexual 

activity.” Id. She argued that she “is willing to produce relevant records,” but

gynecological and sexual activity records “are not relevant” to this litigation because they 

“do not pertain to any of the damages Plaintiff seeks in this credit reporting case.” Id. 

Plaintiff contends that defendant has requested production of even her gynecological

records, and plaintiff has offered to provide those and other records to the court for in 

camera review to determine their relevance and whether limited redactions of irrelevant, 

highly-sensitive information are appropriate. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff also makes reference to 

Case 4:18-cv-02405-PJH Document 51 Filed 02/28/19 Page 3 of 5
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

the private and personal nature of those records. Id.

Because the magistrate judge’s order was based solely on her determination that 

plaintiff alleged only “garden variety” emotional distress, and plaintiff has since conceded 

that she alleges more than “garden variety” emotional distress and has agreed to 

produce medical records because of those allegations, defendant’s objections to the 

magistrate judge’s discovery order are moot. Plaintiff now seeks to prevent production of 

a smaller category of medical records based on new grounds that the magistrate judge 

did not have occasion to address. The court therefore REFERS the present discovery 

dispute to the magistrate judge. When considering the new dispute (if it is not first 

resolved by the parties), the magistrate judge may have occasion to determine: 

(1) whether the contested records are relevant and whether any redactions are 

appropriate; and (2) if the records are relevant and plaintiff objects to the courtdetermined scope of redactions (if any), whether California’s1 evidentiary or constitutional 

privacy protections should limit discovery in this action. The later determination would 

require consideration of California law and whether it applies to this action filed pursuant 

to the district court’s jurisdiction of civil actions arising under the laws of the United

States.

CONCLUSION

The parties are directed to meet and confer to try to resolve their remaining 

disagreement. If the parties do not resolve their disagreement, they are directed to file a 

new joint letter brief in compliance with Magistrate Judge Beeler’s standing order no later 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 

1 The court does not anticipate plaintiff arguing that any of her gynecological records are 

subject to the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege, which prevents production of 

“confidential communications between a psychotherapist and her patient,” absent waiver 

of the privilege. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9 (1996).

Case 4:18-cv-02405-PJH Document 51 Filed 02/28/19 Page 4 of 5
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

than 14 days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2019

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-02405-PJH Document 51 Filed 02/28/19 Page 5 of 5