2012-00120854-CU-MM

Karen Valdez vs. Sutter Health Inc

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Special 2) Production

Filed By: Sekelick, Peter W.

***If any party requests oral argument, then at the time the request is made, the
requesting party must inform the court and opposing counsel of the specific
discovery requests or issues on which oral argument is sought.***

Defendant Frederick Johnson, M.D.’s (“Dr. Johnson”) motion to compel further
responses to his third set of special interrogatories and second set of document
requests is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

This is a medical malpractice case. The discovery in question is directed at (1) any
EDD or social security disability payments that Plaintiff Karen Valdez (“Valdez”) may
have received after suffering her alleged injuries, which payments might offset any
damages she is awarded, (2) liens associated with Valdez’ medical expenses, (3)
contact information for Valdez’ medical providers, and (4) medical and billing
information from health care providers who treated Valdez for her alleged injuries.

First, all of Valdez’ objections that the discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to
discovery of admissible information are OVERRULED. All the information either bears
directly upon a claim or defense or is likely to facilitate settlement.

Valdez’ privacy objections are OVERRULED as well. To the extent Valdez has a
privacy interest in the documents and information sought, she has either waived her
rights by placing the matters at issue, or Dr. Johnson has a compelling need in the
materials sought that outweighs Valdez’ privacy concerns. In reaching this conclusion,
the court finds that the discovery is directly relevant to the litigation and that the
discovery requests are narrowly tailored to Dr. Johnson’s compelling need.

Valdez’ objections that Document Requests Nos. 20 and/or 21 are burdensome,
oppressive, harassing, or seek documents that are equally available, are
OVERRULED. This request seeks records of collateral-source payments. Because
the collateral source rule does not apply in MICRA medical malpractice actions, (CC §
3333.1), Dr. Johnson is entitled to the documents.

The court rejects Valdez’ argument that, because she has produced some responsive
documents or information, Dr. Johnson is not entitled to additional responsive
information or documents. Valdez may not unilaterally determine the scope of
discovery, and instead must provide further responses pursuant to the applicable
statutes in the Discovery Act.

To the extent Dr. Johnson requests an order compelling Valdez to produce responsive
documents, the request is DENIED as premature. The court may only enter such an
order after a responding party has indicated that it will produce responsive documents
and thereafter fails to make the production. (CCP § 2031.320(a).)

Valdez’ suggestion that the court conduct an in-camera hearing is DENIED.
Furthermore, to the extent Valdez now contends that some responsive documents or information could be privileged, her contention is unavailing: she did not object to any
discovery request based upon privilege, and thus has waived all privileges.

Pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.300(d) and 2031.310(h), the court imposes a monetary
sanction against Valdez and her counsel, Law Office of Douglas C. Fladseth, in the
amount of $460 (2 hrs @ reasonable rate of $200/hr + $60 filing fee). Valdez was not
substantially justified in opposing the motion, and other circumstances do not make an
award of sanctions unjust.

Valdez and her counsel shall pay the monetary sanction no later than April 18, 2014.
If Valdez and her counsel fail to pay the sanction by such date, then Dr. Johnson may
lodge for the court’s signature a formal order awarding sanctions, which may be
enforced as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40
th
Cal.App.4 608, 615.)

The court notes that both Valdez and Dr. Johnson disregarded CRC 1.20(b) and filed
documents containing Valdez’ unredacted social security number. Court documents
are generally available for public viewing. Counsel are directed to meet and confer
and, no later than March 19, 2014, determine whether Valdez wishes to keep her
social security number private. If she wishes to remove her unredacted social security
from public view, then the parties shall jointly, promptly craft and file a motion or
application to seal pursuant to CRC 2.550-2.551. At the time any such motion or
application is filed, the parties shall lodge appropriately redacted but otherwise
identical versions of the documents (not merely the exhibits within those documents)
containing Valdez’ unredacted social security number.

Conclusion

No later than March 28, 2014, Valdez shall serve verified further responses, without
objections, to the discovery requests in Dr. Johnson’s separate statement. The further
responses shall strictly comply with CCP §§ 2030.210-2030.230, 2030.250, 2031.210-
2031.230, and 2031.250.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as
required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel for moving party is directed to contact
counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the
court’s tentative ruling procedure. If counsel for moving party is unable to contact
counsel for opposing party prior to hearing, counsel for moving party shall be available
at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without
following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.