AIMMY WILSON ET AL VS WELCH ALLYN INC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677924    Hearing Date: December 15, 2020    Dept: C

WILSON v. WELCH ALLYN INC, et al.

CASE NO.:  BC677924

HEARING:  12/15/20 @ 10:30 AM

JUDGE: OLIVAI ROSALES

#6

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Aimmy Wilson is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Within 15 days, Plaintiff is ordered identify the doctor. The motion is DENIED as to the surveillance video.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Wilson pursuant to CCP § 2025.480.

“(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (CCP § 2025.480.)

Identity of the Doctor:

Plaintiff testified that she suffers from PTSD when she was assaulted by a doctor when she was a minor. She testified that she reported the doctor when she was an adult to the Downey Police Department and Child Protective Services.

Plaintiff now refuses to identify the doctor. Plaintiff contends that the information is protected by her right of privacy.

However, the constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a compelling state interest. Inquiry into one’s private affairs will not be constitutionally justified simply because the inadmissible and irrelevant matter sought might lead to other relevant evidence. The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a “careful balancing” of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. If an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the “least intrusive means” to satisfy the interest. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855.)

The court finds that the requested information is directly relevant to Plaintiff Wilson’s claims of mental and emotional damages, and Plaintiff McConkey’s claims of loss of consortium.

Plaintiff claims to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) from the alleged incident at issue in this litigation. Plaintiff’s husband, Steven McConkey, alleges loss of consortium due to the impact of the incident, which has impacted their sexual relations.

However, Plaintiff’s medical records reveal she made complaints of sexual issues both prior to getting married to McConkey and prior to the subject incident. Additionally, Plaintiff’s medical records reveal that various healthcare providers suspect Plaintiff has somatoform disorder, factitious disorder, and/or is simply malingering. Plaintiff testified that she has “severe forms of disassociation, syncope” and her medical records reveal she has a history of becoming paranoid with her thinking.

Plaintiffs have placed their mental, emotional, and loss of consortium damages at issue in this case. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to information concerning prior injuries that may reduce damages and/or evidence that calls into question Plaintiffs’ veracity. To ensure the least intrusive means, a protective order will issue for attorney’s eyes only.

Surveillance Video:

Plaintiff claims that Kaiser harassed her by hiring a private investigator “multiple times” over the course of several years. Plaintiff testified that the individual has followed her in various cars that were different colors, tried to run over her husband and this individual left photographs for her depicting the subject incident in an envelope at her apartment complex. She claims this investigator is showed up at her parents’ house in January 2020 where she was and that he was wearing a “long gray wig” as a disguise. She asserted that she would obtain and provide her parents’ surveillance video.

Plaintiff now contends that her parents no longer have the surveillance video.

Although the court finds that Defendants may be entitled to the surveillance video, Defendants have made no Motion to Compel the Production of such. At the deposition, Defendants merely asked Plaintiff whether she still had a copy of the surveillance video— there is no evidence to suggest that any formal request for production has been made. Moreover, based on Plaintiff’s testimony, it does not appear as though Plaintiff is in possession, custody, or control of the surveillance video. Therefore, it appears as though the video may only be obtainable via subpoena directed towards Plaintiff’s non-party parents. If the surveillance video no longer exists, Plaintiff’s parents could submit a verification, attesting to such. Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge to attest to what is in her parents’ possession.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Within 15 days, Plaintiff is ordered identify the doctor. The motion is denied as to the surveillance video.

Case Number: BC677924    Hearing Date: November 17, 2020    Dept: C

WILSON v. WELCH ALLYN INC, et al.

CASE NO.:  BC677924

HEARING:  11/17/20 @ 1:30 PM

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiffs Wilson and McConkey’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one to Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is DENIED as to No. 4.1, and GRANTED as to No. 12.1.

II. Defendant Scale-Tronix, Inc.’s motion to compel Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s further responses to special interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs to give NOTICE.

I.¿Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiffs Wilson and McConkey move to compel Defendant Kaiser’s further responses to form pursuant to CCP § 2030.300.

CCP § 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)

Form Interrogatory No. 4.1

No. 4.1 requests whether there were any policies of insurance in effect at the time of the incident.

Defendant responded that it is insured for well above the amount of the claim being made. Further, during the meet and confer process, Kaiser informed Plaintiff that it is self-insured and thus, No. 4.1 does not apply.

The court finds Kaiser’s response is adequate.

Form Interrogatory No. 12.1

Plaintiff, a pediatric nurse, alleges that she was electrocuted when she touched a defective scale used to weigh babies.  No. 12.1 seeks the identity and contact information of the minor patient’s mother and visitors who may be percipient witnesses. 

The court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to contact information of the percipient witness, and that the State’s interest in the information outweighs the mother’s privacy interest.

Pursuant to H&S Code § 1280.15, CC § 56, and HIPAA, the court will issue an Order directing Kaiser to access the third party minor patient’s medical records to disclose the mother’s identity and contact information.

To ensure the least intrusive means, a protective order will issue to restrict the use of the information to counsel only, and the information cannot be disclosed to any other person, including Plaintiffs. The information may be used by counsel only for the purpose of preparing for, conducting, participating in the conduct of, and/or prosecuting and/or defending this action.

The court declines to impose sanctions. Kaiser is prohibited from accessing medical information of its patients without a court order. Thus, Kaiser’s refusal is reasonable and does not warrant sanctions.

II.¿Scale-Tronix, Inc.’s Motion

Defendant Scale-Tronix, Inc. moves to compel Defendant Kaiser’s further responses to special interrogatory No. 1 pursuant to CCP § 2030.300.

Special Interrogatory No. 1 seeks identity of percipient witnesses (which includes the identity of the mother).

For the same reasons discussed above, the court finds that the parties are entitled to identifying information about the mother, who may be a percipient witness, and that the State’s interest in the information outweighs the mother’s privacy interest.

Pursuant to H&S Code § 1280.15, CC § 56, and HIPAA, the court will issue an Order directing Kaiser to access the third party minor patient’s medical records to disclose the mother’s identity and contact information.

To ensure the least intrusive means, a protective order will issue to restrict the use of the information to counsel only, and the information cannot be disclosed to any other person, including Plaintiffs. The information may be used by counsel only for the purpose of preparing for, conducting, participating in the conduct of, and/or prosecuting and/or defending this action.