1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 YOLONDA BENNETT, Case No. 20-cv-03581-JST (SK)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 9 v. TO QUASH AND TO COMPEL

10 AT&T SERVICES, INC., Regarding Docket Nos. 65, 11 Defendant.

12 The parties filed a joint discovery letter brief on September 14, 2021. In the letter brief, 13 Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas issued to her medical providers. (Dkt. Nos. 65, 67.) 14 Defendant issued six subpoenas to medical providers for Plaintiff: three to Sutter entities in 15 different locations, one to a medical doctor, one to Stanford, and one to a dentist. (Dkt. No. 67.) 16 The subpoenas seek comprehensive records regarding Plaintiff’s history of medical conditions, 17 testing, and billing, dating back to January 1, 2017, a year and a half before Defendant terminated 18 Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff claims that she has suffered nausea, sleep deprivation, elevated 19 blood pressure, nosebleeds, bruxism, TMJ, permanent tinnitus, severe migraines, depression and 20 anxiety, and has disturbing dreams on a frequent basis, and she takes a number of medications. 21 (Dkt. No. 65 (citing Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Responses 4, 5 and 6).) Plaintiff complains that 22 Defendant issued these subpoenas to medical providers, some of whom Plaintiff did not identify in 23 litigation but whom Defendant discovered by unknown means. (Dkt. No. 65.) 24 Plaintiff concedes that some medical records are relevant because she claims emotional 25 distress as part of her damages. There is no doubt that Plaintiff has placed her emotional distress 26 damages at issue, and Defendant is entitled to learn if her myriad of medical problems – and not 27 the loss of her job – caused her emotional distress. See, e.g., Doe v. City of Chula Vista, 196 1 plaintiff’s “emotional state was caused by something else”). Although conceding general 2 relevance, Plaintiff here argues that she should have the ability to have the “first look” at her 3 medical records from third parties in order to redact any material that she believes is not relevant 4 to the litigation. In support, Plaintiff cites a procedure in Tamburri v. SunTrust Mortgage Inc., 5

(N.D. Cal. March 11, 2013), in which the court ordered disclosure of medical 6 evidence but allowed the plaintiff to review them, redact any irrelevant materials, and produce a 7 log of redacted materials to the defendant. The Court declines to follow the novel procedure 8 described in Tamburri and DENIES the motion to quash the subpoenas to third party medical 9 providers. Allowing Plaintiff to examine and redact her records before Defendant can review 10 them is not a viable process. Especially disturbing is that Plaintiff did not disclose all of her 11 medical providers to Defendant, and that fact supports Defendant’s full access to her medical 12 records without Plaintiff’s screening. Although Plaintiff has legitimate concerns in maintaining 13 her privacy, there is a protective order (Dkt. No. 27) to maintain confidentiality of records, and 14 that protective order was designed to balance Plaintiff’s right to privacy with Defendant’s need for 15 the information. 16 Plaintiff also seeks additional information in specific requests. 17 Request for Production of Documents 1, Set 3 18 Plaintiff seeks production of a “Report Preview” for Global Front Door projects with headings that would make the report comprehensible. Defendant claims that it produced the 19 documents in the format in which they were maintained, as required by Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 34(b)(2)(E)(i). The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to force Defendant to create a 21 new report. 22 Request for Production of Documents 28, Set 1 23 Plaintiff seeks documents that show the employees who were evaluated as part of the same 24 reduction in force in which Plaintiff lost her job. The Court GRANTS the motion to compel these 25 documents. Defendant must produce these documents by September 30, 2021. 26 Request for Production of Documents 7, 8, 9, 10, Set 8 27 1 claims that it conducted a reasonable search and cannot find the documents Plaintiff seeks. 2 || Plaintiff claims that she can provide a declaration regarding the location of the documents and the 3 || identities of the people who maintained the documents. The Court DENIES this motion to compel 4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff is aware of the location of these documents, Plaintiffs 5 counsel should meet and confer with Defendant to make sure that Defendant searches in the 6 appropriate areas. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: September 22, 2021 5 Attlee [ww SALLIE KIM 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28