Pauly v. Stanford Health Care
- Susan Illston
- 3:18-cv-05387
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pauly v. Stanford Health Care, Judge Illston limited Stanford’s subpoenas to records concerning Pauly’s physical injuries during November and December 2008.
Makenzie Pauly and Stanford Health Care; the ruling also limits the records that Sutter Medical Center’s custodian must produce under Stanford’s subpoenas.
What happened
In Pauly v. Stanford Health Care, Makenzie Pauly objected to three subpoenas Stanford Health Care sent to Sutter Medical Center. The subpoenas sought broad medical, imaging, billing, insurance, and payment records concerning Pauly from the first date through the present.
Pauly argued that the subpoenas sought privileged information and exceeded the scope of her claims. Stanford argued that the records were appropriate because Pauly had put her physical and mental health at issue. The court found the subpoenas overbroad because the complaint concerned Pauly’s alleged pain and inability to walk during an incident in November and December 2008.
Judge Susan Illston ordered that the subpoenas be limited to records concerning Pauly’s alleged pain and physical injuries during November and December 2008. The court concluded that Pauly’s allegations of mental and emotional distress did not place her entire mental-health history at issue.
The detailed version
- Pauly v. Stanford Health Care · No. 3:18-cv-05387
- Susan Illston
- Sept. 7, 2021
Background
Makenzie Pauly filed a discovery letter objecting to three deposition subpoenas issued by Stanford Health Care to the custodian of records for Sutter Medical Center. The subpoenas sought: (1) all documents and medical records concerning Pauly’s care, treatment, or examination; (2) all imaging and films concerning that care, treatment, or examination from the first date through the present; and (3) billing statements, invoices, payment records, insurance records, and related information.
The case concerns Stanford’s alleged failure to screen and treat Pauly in November and December 2008. Pauly alleges that Stanford refused to accept her as a transfer patient and provide medical care, causing personal injury. She also alleges physical, mental, and emotional distress while waiting six weeks for an appointment.
Legal standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which allows a party to subpoena documents, and Rule 26(b)(1), which limits discovery to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs. Rule 45 also permits a court to quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected information when no exception or waiver applies.
Because California law supplies the privilege rules relevant here, the court applied California law. Under that law, a plaintiff who claims a physical, mental, or emotional injury waives medical and psychotherapist privileges as to information concerning the conditions placed at issue, but retains privacy over unrelated treatment. The court also noted that a general claim of emotional distress does not by itself waive privacy over a plaintiff’s entire mental-health history.
Court’s analysis
The court found Stanford’s subpoenas overbroad. It read the complaint as limiting Pauly’s claims to alleged pain and resulting inability to walk during the underlying incident in November and December 2008. The court rejected the argument that Pauly’s allegation of severe mental and emotional distress during the six-week wait placed her entire mental-health history at issue.
Disposition
Judge Susan Illston modified Stanford’s subpoenas. The subpoenas were limited to records concerning Pauly’s alleged pain and physical injury during November and December 2008.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.