Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02762/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02762-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-02762 SI

ORDER RE: MEDICAL RECORDS

On February 25, 2005, plaintifffiledhissecond amended complaint in this matter, alleging, among other

things, that defendant violated the Family and MedicalLeave Act(“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, etseq., when

it refused his request for leave to allow him to care for his daughter. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s refusal

to grant him leave prevented him from caring for his daughter, which, in turn, caused him emotional distress.

See Second Amended Compl. at ¶¶ 46-49.

On November 2, 2005, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FMLA does not provide for

recovery of damages for emotionaldistress. See Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., -- F.3d --,

2005 WL 2861035, at *10-11 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Washington v. Fort James Operating Co., 110

F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1334 (D. Or. 2000) (“The FMLA, however, does not provide damages for emotional

distress.”). Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED to produce supplemental briefing on the issue

whether plaintiff may proceed with his claim for emotionaldistress damages. The parties shall include in their

briefs a discussion ofthe discoverability ofMarlys Stevens’s medicalrecords if emotionaldistress damages are

not available to plaintiff. 

Case 3:04-cv-02762-SI Document 50 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The briefs shall take the form of letter briefs of no longer than five pages. Plaintiff must file his letter

brief before November 11, 2005. Defendant must file a his response by November 16. Plaintiff’s reply, if any,

is due November 18, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2005

______________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02762-SI Document 50 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2