Hughes v. Apple, Inc.

Background

The parties disputed the scope of medical records that the plaintiffs must produce in discovery. They agreed that California law governs the dispute. The disagreement concerned whether the plaintiffs may redact portions of their mental-health records.

Apple argued that mental-health treatment is inherently complex and holistic, and therefore that the records should not be redacted. The plaintiffs argued that some records may concern conditions they did not place at issue by filing the lawsuit.

Legal standard

California Evidence Code sections 996 and 1016 create an exception to the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges when a patient puts a medical or mental-health condition at issue. Under the California Supreme Court’s decisions discussed in the order, disclosure may be required for communications directly related to the specific conditions the patient placed before the court. The patient does not automatically give up privacy over all past medical or mental-health treatment.

The patient initially bears the burden of showing that a confidential communication is not directly related to the condition at issue. The patient may need to narrow the claimed mental or emotional distress or explain generally what the therapy concerned. The privilege is to be interpreted broadly in favor of the patient. The same analysis applies to medical records and mental-health records.

Order

The court held that the record was not sufficiently developed to determine whether redactions were appropriate for the dozens of plaintiffs or what those redactions should include. The allegations in the operative complaint were not enough to answer those questions.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to follow the California Supreme Court’s guidance and substantiate any redactions to their mental-health records, including redactions concerning medications. For every redaction, each plaintiff must make a plaintiff-specific showing that the redacted material is not directly related to the condition or conditions that plaintiff placed at issue. The order recognized that some plaintiffs may not be entitled to redact any mental-health treatment if all of that treatment is directly relevant, while other plaintiffs may have distinct mental-health conditions unrelated to the lawsuit.

If Apple finds a redaction’s explanation unpersuasive, the parties must meet and confer. If they cannot resolve the dispute, they must file a joint discovery letter brief. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered the discovery order on July 25, 2025.