Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05354/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05354-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY JILL ST. JOHN, an )

individual, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) 

)

THE BOEING COMPANY, a )

Delaware corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:01-cv-05354-AWI-SMS

ORDER re: IN CAMERA REVIEW OF

PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL/DENTAL

RECORDS

The Court met with counsel telephonically and informally on

December 19, 2006 (Doc. 147). Pursuant to the Court’s offer to

conduct an in camera review of medical records with which

production Plaintiff takes exception due to claimed relevancy

objections or privacy concerns, the Court received only one (1) set

of records prior to the January 26, 2007, cut-off deadline. Those

records are from Dr. Margaret Meadows, DDS. 

Unaccustomed as the Court is to being baffled, this is one of

those times. Upon review of the very limited records regarding

Plaintiff’s dental history with Dr. Meadows from April 4, 2002 to

the last visit recorded of April 22, 2004, there seems to be

Case 1:01-cv-05354-AWI -SMS Document 151 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 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

2

absolutely no reason whatsoever for the Court to be put to the task

of reviewing these records for discoverability in this case. If

there are privacy concerns regarding Plaintiff’s dental care, it

does not jump out. And, if Plaintiff is concerned about basic

garden-variety relevance, it is astonishing that she would ask this

Court to take the time to review a dental file with no assistance

as to what is claimed to be protected. 

It is for the trial judge to determine admissibility at trial;

now is not the time to rule on relevancy as it impacts

admissibility. And, given the choice between giving up four (4) or

so pages of arguably unrelated information regarding one’s client’s

teeth versus asking the Court to take her time to wonder at the

discoverability, the choice should be clear. It may be that there

is something in the patient’s/Plaintiff’s own relation of her

general medical history upon initial visit with the good Dr. that

is of concern. But, even that is not clear to the Court.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 1b pages of Treatment Notes be

copied and produced along with the two-sided (blue) Confidential

Patient Information sheet. To facilitate this production, the

Court will copy and forward the four (4) pages of discoverable

information to both counsel, and will return the original dental

file to Dr. Meadows.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05354-AWI -SMS Document 151 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 2