Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00611/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00611-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN JORDAN, NO. CIV.S-05-0611 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DEERE & COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

This matter came before the court on January 6, 2006, for

hearing defendants’ motion to compel. Charles E. Noble appeared on

behalf of plaintiff. Rebekka Martorano appeared on behalf of

defendants. For the reasons explained below, the motion to compel

will be granted.

This products liability action arises from a February 3,

2003, accident in which plaintiff injured his finger while operating

a lawn mower. The complaint alleges that plaintiff has suffered wage

loss, hospital and medical expenses, general damage and loss of

earning capacity. At his deposition on August 31, 2005, plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 7
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

2

testified that he was absent from work during the week preceding the

date of the accident due to an unspecified medical condition. He

further testified that while he missed work following the accident

due to the finger injury, he was also unable to work during the same

period due to other unspecified medical conditions. (See Pl.’s

Depo., Ex. F. to Exhibits to Joint Statement.) 

In the instant motion defendants seek an order compelling

plaintiff to (1) produce unredacted copies of medical records

relating to the medical condition(s) that caused plaintiff to miss

work from January 23 to 31, 2003, the week preceding the date of the

accident; (2) produce unredacted copies of medical records relating

to medical conditions that have caused plaintiff to miss work from

February 3, 2003, to the present; and (3) answer questions at

deposition relating to these, as yet, unspecified medical conditions. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion based on assertions of the physicianpatient privilege as well as the constitutional right to privacy

contained within Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. 

There is no dispute as to whether the information sought by

defendants falls within the purview of the privileges asserted by

plaintiff. Rather, the issue is the extent to which plaintiff has

waived those privileges by bringing this lawsuit.

This action was removed from state court based on diversity

jurisdiction. Because this is a diversity case governed by

California law, the court must also look to state law to decide

claims of privilege. See Fed. R. Evid. 501; In re California Pub.

Utils. Comm'n, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 1989).

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 7
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

1 In re Lifschutz concerned the psychotherapist-patient

privilege and the patient-litigant exception thereto. However, the

patient-litigant exception to the physician-patient privilege

“parallels the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege

precisely.” In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal. 3d at 433 n.15, 85 Cal. Rptr. at

840 n.15. Therefore, In re Lifschutz is instructive with respect to

both the psychotherapist-patient and physician-patient privileges. 

3

With respect to plaintiff’s assertion of the physicianpatient privilege, California Evidence Code § 996 provides as

follows:

There is no privilege under this article as to a

communication relevant to an issue concerning the

condition of the patient if such issue has been

tendered by:

(a) The patient ....

Cal. Evid. Code § 996. Under this “patient-litigant exception”:

[D]isclosure can be compelled only with respect

to those ... conditions the patient-litigant has

“disclose(d) ... by bringing an action in which

they are in issue;” communications which are not

directly relevant to those specific conditions do

not fall within the terms of [the] exception and

therefore remain privileged. Disclosure cannot

be compelled with respect to other aspects of the

patient-litigant's [condition] even though they

may, in some sense, be “relevant” to the

substantive issues of litigation. The patient

thus is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to

seek redress for a specific ... injury; the scope

of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature

of the injuries which the patient-litigant

himself has brought before the court.

In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal. 3d 415, 435, 85 Cal. Rptr. 829, 842

(1970)(citation and footnote omitted).1 See also Britt v. Superior

Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844, 864, 143 Cal. Rptr. 695, 708 (1978)(“[W]hile

[plaintiffs] may not withhold information which relates to any

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 7
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

2 “The patient-physician privilege and the right of privacy are

closely related protections against public disclosure of private

information.” Binder v. Superior Court, 196 Cal. App. 3d 893, 899,

242 Cal. Rptr. 231, 234 (1987).

4

physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing

this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all

unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have

undergone in the past.”); Roberts v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 3d 330,

339, 107 Cal. Rptr. 309, 314 (1973)(“in a case such as this where

there is no specific mental condition of the patient at issue, and

discovery of the privileged communications is sought merely upon

speculation that there may be a 'connection' between the patient's

past psychiatric treatment and some 'mental component' of his present

injury, those communications should remain protected by the

privilege”). “[T]he burden rests upon the patient initially to

submit some showing that a given confidential communication is not

directly related to the issue he has tendered to the court.” In re

Lifschutz, 2 Cal. 3d at 436, 85 Cal. Rptr. at 843.

Similar standards apply with respect to the right of

privacy under the California Constitution.2 When discovery otherwise

protected by the right to privacy is “directly relevant to the

plaintiff's claim, and disclosure of the [information] is essential

to the fair resolution of the lawsuit, a trial court may properly

compel such disclosure.” Britt, 20 Cal. 3d at 859, 143 Cal. Rptr. at

775. See also Davis v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1014, 9

Cal. Rptr. 2d 331, 335 (1992)(an implicit waiver of a party’s

constitutional right to privacy “encompasses only discovery directly

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair

resolution of the lawsuit”). Nonetheless, even when discovery of

private information is found directly relevant and essential to the

fair resolution of the action, First Amendment principles “dictate

that the compelled disclosure be narrowly drawn to assure maximum

protection of the constitutional interests at stake.” Britt, 20 Cal.

3d at 859, 143 Cal. Rptr. at 775. “The proponent of discovery of

constitutionally protected material has the burden of making a

threshold showing that the evidence sought is ‘directly relevant’ to

the claim or defense.” Harris v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. App. 4th

661, 665, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 564, 567 (1992)(citing Britt, 20 Cal. 3d at

859-862, 143 Cal. Rptr. at 704-06.) 

Here, the medical records and deposition testimony sought

by defendants is clearly directly relevant to the issues tendered by

plaintiff and essential to a fair resolution of this matter. More

specifically, in this lawsuit plaintiff claims that he missed work

because of the finger injury suffered in the accident. Further,

plaintiff concedes that he missed a week of work immediately

preceding the date of the accident due to some unspecified medical

condition. He also concedes that medical conditions in addition to

that related to his finger caused him to miss work during the period

he claims to have missed work as a result of the finger injury. 

Information related to these conditions is clearly directly relevant

as to why plaintiff was absent from work during certain periods

following the date of the accident at issue in this action. 

Defendants cannot be forced to simply accept plaintiff’s assertion

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

that he missed work on any given day due to his finger injury, as

opposed to the condition plaintiff was suffering just days before the

accident or during the period following it. Rather, defendants are

entitled to discover the cause, or causes, of plaintiff’s claimed

absences of work. See Britt, 20 Cal. 3d at 864 n. 9, 143 Cal. Rptr.

at 708 n.9 ("insofar as a number of injuries or illnesses, some

related and some unrelated to the airport operations, have

contributed to a medical condition placed in issue by a plaintiff,

defendant is entitled to obtain information as to all such injuries

or illnesses"]; Palay v. Superior Court, 18 Cal. App. 4th 919, 933,

22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 839, 848 (finding a mother’s medical records related

to prenatal care subject to production to allow a determination of

the "cause of Child's medical condition and claimed neurological

deficit, and any impact the prenatal period had on the alleged

injuries"). For these reasons, the court finds that the medical

information sought by defendants is directly relevant to the issues

plaintiff has chosen to litigate and essential to the fair resolution

of those issues.

The court also finds that the discovery sought is

sufficiently narrow in scope to assure maximum protection of the

constitutional interests at stake. Only a handful of medical records

are at issue and those records concern only the period immediately

preceding the date of the accident to the present (i.e.,

approximately three years later). The parties also remain free to

submit a stipulated protective order to the court which would limit

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

the use of the discovered information to this action only. Such an

order would further safeguard the privacy of plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall produce to defendants unredacted copies

of the medical records at issue within ten (10) days of the date of

this order; and

3. Plaintiff shall make himself available for further

deposition to answer reasonable follow-up questions regarding the

records to be produced. Such further deposition shall occur on a

date agreed upon by the parties and not exceed four (4) hours in

length, excluding appropriate breaks. 

DATED: January 10, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\jordan0611.oah

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/11/06 Page 7 of 7