Tomlinson v. United Behavioral Health
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:19-cv-06999
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sandra Tomlinson v. United Behavioral Health, Judge Spero denied requests for discovery from “Mary Jones” and recommended barring her declarations and trial testimony.
The ruling directly affected Plaintiff “Mary Jones,” whose deposition, document production, and interrogatory verification were sought, and United Behavioral Health, which made those requests. It also recommended limiting Jones’s ability to submit declarations or testify at trial.
What happened
In Sandra Tomlinson, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, United Behavioral Health asked the court to require “Mary Jones,” a pseudonym, to appear for a deposition, search for additional documents, and verify her answers to written questions.
The court found that the burden of those requests outweighed their likely benefit. Jones’s mother, who is her agent under a power of attorney, had already produced the available documents and signed the written answers. A psychiatrist reported that Jones was in an acute and unstable mental-health condition and could not participate in a deposition.
Judge Spero denied United Behavioral Health’s discovery requests. He ordered Jones to submit medical records for private court review by December 15, 2025, said the court would decide whether more discovery was appropriate, and recommended barring Jones from submitting declarations or testifying at trial. Parties could object to that recommendation within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Tomlinson v. United Behavioral Health · No. 3:19-cv-06999
- Richard Seeborg
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
United Behavioral Health asked the court to require Plaintiff “Mary Jones,” a pseudonym, to do three things: appear for a deposition, search for documents responsive to the defendant’s requests and supplement her production, and provide a verification for her own interrogatory responses. The parties presented the dispute in a joint discovery letter.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The court concluded that the burden of the requested discovery outweighed its likely benefits.
For document discovery, the court found no evidence that Jones possessed documents beyond those already produced by her mother, who was also Jones’s agent under a durable power of attorney. The opinion states that Jones lived with her mother and had no documents.
For the interrogatories, the court found that the responses already provided were properly signed by an agent holding power of attorney. In light of Jones’s fragile mental condition, the court held that this was sufficient.
For the deposition, Plaintiff submitted a letter from Jones’s psychiatrist stating that Jones was in an acute and unstable condition, could not participate in or endure a deposition, and could suffer a serious deterioration in her mental health from the strains of the litigation. The opinion also states that Jones had previously been hospitalized after attempting to commit suicide. The court found it unlikely that Jones would provide more information about the issues in the case than her mother had provided, including whether Jones had authorized her mother to assign her insurance benefits when Jones entered inpatient care. The opinion states that Jones was 18 at that time and that the provider testified that no assignment was required for admission.
Order and Recommendation
The court DENIED United Behavioral Health’s requests for the deposition, additional document discovery, and verification of the interrogatory responses.
The court also stated that Jones had not produced medical records showing her diagnosis, treatment, and current condition. It ordered her to provide those records to the undersigned for in camera inspection—that is, private review by the court—by December 15, 2025, through Judge Spero’s courtroom deputy. The court stated that it would issue an order if, after reviewing the records, it determined that further discovery from Jones was appropriate.
In light of Jones’s inability to participate personally in discovery, Judge Spero recommended that she be barred from submitting declarations or testifying at trial. The opinion states that any party could object to that recommendation within 14 days of the order. The text provided does not state the outcome of any later objection or whether the recommendation was adopted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.