On 28 March 2014, Plaintiff, Wayne Goodrich’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s 27 January 2014 Oder denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant Apple Inc.’s overbroad records subpoenas was argued and submitted. Defendant, Apple Inc. filed opposition to the motion.

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).

Statement of Facts:

On 17 August 2012, Plaintiff Goodrich filed a Complaint against Defendant Apple, Inc., his former employer for breach of oral and implied contract for job security and other related claims.

In his complaint Plaintiff sought damages for, among other things, emotional distress and mental pain and anguish. On 21 August 2013 Apple propounded document requests seeking Plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff responded to Defendants Requests with objections and did not produce any documents. Following extensive unsuccessful meet and confer efforts, Apple filed a Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff’s medical records. This Court granted Apple’s Motion and ordered Plaintiff to produce documents concerning his treatment from January 2010 to the present.

Subsequently, due to Plaintiff’s failure to adequately provide substantive information about Plaintiff’s medical conditions, Defendant subpoenaed Plaintiff’s medical providers to obtain the relevant documentation. Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Quash these subpoenas on 4 October 2013.

On 27 January 2014, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical records.

Issue:

Plaintiff alleges that this Court based its 27 January 2014 Order on incorrect facts that affected the Court’s ruling.

Plaintiff states the incorrect facts include, a declaration cited in the Order that was not filed in the case, interrogatories that were never propounded by the Defendant, physical injuries that were not claimed by the Plaintiff and that the Court mistakenly addresses the Plaintiff as “she” instead of “he”.

Because of these mistakes, Plaintiff requests that the Court correct these errors and issue a new Order. Plaintiff also requests a new order limit the scope of discoverable medical records to include only relevant records from December 2011until present or in the alternative, from December 2010 (one year before the start of Plaintiff’s claimed emotional distress) until present.

Discussion

Motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 27 January 2014 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to Quash Defendant Apple Inc.’s Overbroad Records Subpoena.

Plaintiff makes the Motion to Reconsider the Court’s 27 January 2014 Order pursuant to CCP 1008(a).
CCP 1008(a) provides “When an application for an Order has been made to a judge, or a Court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of the written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances or law, make an application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.”

Plaintiff alleges that the Court incorrectly weaves in facts that are not relevant to the instant case in this Court’s determination of the 27 January 2014 Order. Plaintiff states that the Court’s Order incorrectly states that the Plaintiff’s injuries affected not only the brain, but the heart, upper body, hands, fingers, stomach, buttock area, legs, and whole body. Another mistake that the Plaintiff points out to is that the Court addressed the Plaintiff as a female.
Although Plaintiff’s concerns are valid, this Court believes that the “errors” in the Court’s order does not provide “new or different” grounds on which the Court can reconsider under CCP 1008(a).

Thus, the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

However, the Court realizes that there were inaccuracies in its previous Order. Although it is neither new information nor new facts, the Court may correct the Jan 27th Order, on its own motion, to reflect Plaintiff’s concerns. While doing so, the Court will briefly address the issues raised by the Plaintiff.

Medical Records

Plaintiff states that his physical condition is not relevant to his claim of emotional suffering and therefore his entire medical history is not discoverable, as opposed to only those medical records regarding his emotional distress.

Although it is true that the Plaintiff alleges only psychological injury, the Court finds that it is difficult to separate the two. There may or may not be alternate causes that caused the Plaintiff emotional distress. Here, Plaintiff cannot unilaterally determine the amount of harm that Defendant caused without allowing Defendant to investigate alternative causes to Plaintiff’s medical condition. Since the Plaintiff has put his emotional health at issue, Defendant may be allowed to review the medical records to determine the nature of, extent of, and scope of alleged emotional distress.

Although the Court may have made an error as to describing the extent of harm suffered, the Court’s Order was based on a correct understanding of facts. The medical records of Plaintiff are directly relevant to the issue of whether the Plaintiff would have suffered the emotional harm but for Apple Inc.’s actions.

Thus, Plaintiff’s entire medical records are discoverable as noted in the previous Order.

Temporal Scope of Order

The Court, in its Order on 27 January 2014, held that the scope of discoverable records should be limited to January 2009 to present. Plaintiff claims that the Court made an error in calculating the temporal scope of the Order.

Here, the Plaintiff claims that he began to suffer work-related emotional distress since Defendant terminated his employment in December 2011. Defendant’s records subpoenas seek all of Plaintiff’s medical records dating back to January 2010. The Court incorrectly addressed the start of the emotional injuries from Jan 2010.

However, as stated in the 27 January 2014 Order, the Court still believes that temporal scope must be limited in scope to records dating from one year before the termination date which induced the emotional suffering alleged by the Plaintiff. (i.e. December 2010 to present). Such records will help Defendant determine whether Plaintiff’s emotional distress could be attributed to Defendant’s conduct.

Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider this Court’s 27 January 2014 Order is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

The Court on its own motion makes additional determinations that Plaintiff’s entire medical records are discoverable but limits the temporal scope of records from December 2010 to present.