18-CIV-00548 LORELL HAMILTON VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ET AL.

LORELL HAMILTON UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
TANYA GOMERMAN SUSAN T. KUMAGAI

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiff Lorell Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) for Protective Order Governing Defendant’s Subpoenas of Medical Providers and Request for Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED to October 30, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department for a Discovery Conference.

Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) issued subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical records from the following treatment providers:

UPS subpoenaed P’s medical records from the following doctors:

(1) Alan Su, M.D. of Psychiatric Alternatives; (2) Sunny Kuegle, M.D. of Psychiatric Alternatives; (3) Cynthia Wiseman-Kelly, LCSW; (4) Steven Chang, M.D. with offices at Ocean-Park Primary Care; (5) Kelly Fitzgerald, M.D. with offices at USCF Women’s Health Primary Care.

Plaintiff requests a protective order allowing Plaintiff to take a “first look” at the medical records and to redact any information that is not relevant to this action such as Plaintiff’s OB/GYN records and information regarding Plaintiff’s sexual history.

In opposition, UPS indicates it is agreeable to Plaintiff having a “first look” at the records from Plaintiff’s primary care physician and Plaintiff’s OB/GYN, which would appear to be the records from Dr. Chang and Dr. Fitzgerald. Thus, it appears that the motion for protective order for a “first look” may be granted as to these records.

As to the remaining records, the parties are to meet and confer in person or by telephone in a good faith effort to see if they may resolve the dispute as to the remaining records. Plaintiff indicates in reply that the records have already been produced to Plaintiff and reviewed, and that these records have already been produced to UPS and redacted for information such as social security number, sexual history and OB/GYN. (See Costin Decl., Exh. C.) Given that Plaintiff already reviewed these records, the parties are to discuss whether instead of granting Plaintiff a “first look” the subpoenas could be modified to exclude Plaintiff’s social security number, and any information regarding her sexual history and OB/GYN. Alternatively, the parties are to discuss whether the subpoenas could be modified to exclude these portions of these documents

October 2, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 9 Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG, Department 3 ________________________________________________________________________ that were already redacted in Plaintiff’s production of these medical records. (See Costin Decl., Exh. C.) If the parties’ meet and confer efforts are successful, then the parties are to contact the clerk by Wednesday, October 24, 2018 to drop this motion. If the parties are unable to resolve their issues after they meet and confer though, they are to appear at the discovery conference.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.