2012-00124044-CU-PA

Antoine J Watts vs. Aaron William Maher

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Compliance with Prior Discovery Order

Filed By: Blakemore, William K.

Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with prior discovery order and to produce
further responses to special interrogatory no 11. is ruled upon as follows.

At the outset, the court must remind both counsel that given the number of motions
such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough
judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could
have and should have been resolved informally. That this is just such a dispute only
serves to highlight the critical need for legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-
confer efforts before filing any discovery motion Compel Compliance with Prior Discovery Order

Defendant has withdrawn the motion on this issue.

Further Responses to Special Interrogatory No. 11

Special Interrogatory no. 11 requests Plaintiffs Imani Watts’ and Michael Fields’ social
security numbers. Both Plaintiffs were minors at the time of the accident.

Defendant claims that the social security numbers may help to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, specifically medical records or evidence bearing on the issue of
the amount of recoverable medical expenses. Defendant further contends that the
information will allow it to opportunity to inquire as to Plaintiffs’ status as a current or
potential MediCare beneficiary as well as to determine whether amount have or will be
paid by MediCare related to Plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendant explains that this information
will help them evaluate the case and the potential for settlement since it will be able to
determine whether MediCare has or will be presenting a claim for reimbursement of
amounts paid.

As an alternative to providing the social security numbers, Defendant is willing to
accept a completed MediCare form attached to its June 27, 2013 letter. (See Ex. A to
Declaration of William Blakemore.)

The motion is DENIED. The Court can take judicial notice that no one is eligible for
MediCare until that person is 65 years old or older. The Court is puzzled as to
Defendant’s argument because Plaintiffs were minors at the time of the accident and
were not eligible for MediCare. Moreover, there are alternative means by which
Defendants may obtain the information for which it claims the social security numbers
are needed.

Both parties’ request for sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is admonished for filing the opposition without redacting or otherwise
shielding the personal information found in the medical records which accompany the
motion, in violation of HIPAA and/or CRC Rule 1.20(b). Counsel is reminded that the
Court’s CCMS system allows the public to electronically access and view all pleadings
once they are filed, unless the Court orders otherwise. Thus, it is imperative for
counsel to appropriately redact all pleadings and documents before filing.
Failure to do so will in the future subject counsel to monetary sanctions. No later than
10/24/2013 Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall file and serve (1) an appropriate motion to seal
pursuant to CRC Rule 2.550 et seq. and (2) an appropriately redacted but otherwise
identical version of the “Declaration of David S. Rosenthal” and “Plaintiffs’ Opposition
to Defendant’s Motion to Compel” which were both filed on 10/3/2013 and contains the
unredacted medical records.

The clerk is directed to change the security clearance for the “Declaration of
David S. Rosenthal” and “Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
Compel” which was not redacted but nevertheless filed on 10/3/2013.

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