Pauly v. Stanford Health Care

Background

Makenzie Pauly alleges that Stanford Health Care failed to screen and treat her in November and December 2008. She claims that Stanford Health Care refused to accept her as a transfer patient and provide medical care, and that she suffered physical, mental, and emotional distress while waiting six weeks for an appointment.

This order resolves three matters: Pauly’s motion for leave to file an untimely motion to strike Stanford Health Care’s answer and affirmative defenses; discovery dispute number 2; and discovery dispute number 3.

Motion for Leave to File a Late Motion to Strike

Pauly asked for permission to file a late motion to strike. Stanford Health Care argued that she had not shown excusable neglect, meaning a legally sufficient reason for missing the deadline. The court excused the delay because Pauly was proceeding without a lawyer and granted her leave to file the motion on or before November 19, 2021.

Discovery Dispute Number 2

Pauly sought documents in six categories: policies and procedures; third-party medical records; Stanford Health Care’s emergency-treatment central log; phone logs; peer-review reports; and her complete electronic medical records.

The court denied the requests for categories 2, 4, 5, and 6 because Pauly had not shown how those documents were likely to lead to relevant or discoverable information.

The court granted the request for policies and procedures relating to Pauly’s treatment during the relevant period. It denied the request for policies and procedures outside that period and for policies and procedures of other hospitals.

The court also granted the request for documents relevant to Pauly from Stanford Health Care’s emergency-treatment central log, but otherwise denied that request.

Discovery Dispute Number 3

Stanford Health Care served two subpoenas seeking medical, office, emergency-room, billing, payment, insurance, and related records concerning Pauly. One subpoena was limited to abdominal complaints, and the other was limited to November and December 2008 and specifically included records from Radiological Associates of Sacramento at the address identified in the subpoenas.

Pauly argued that the requests were overbroad, irrelevant, and disproportionate because she had not claimed special damages. The court disagreed, reasoning that Pauly had not agreed that she would never seek special damages and that the records could be relevant to potential claims under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and California personal-injury law. The court found the requests reasonably calculated to discover potentially relevant information, overruled Pauly’s objections, and ruled that Stanford Health Care was entitled to the requested documents.

Conclusion and Additional Direction

The court granted Pauly leave to file her motion to strike by November 19, 2021. For discovery dispute number 2, Pauly’s document requests were denied except for the limited portions concerning treatment-related policies and procedures and relevant documents from Stanford Health Care’s emergency-treatment central log. For discovery dispute number 3, Stanford Health Care was entitled to the subpoenaed documents and Pauly’s objections were overruled.

Judge Susan Illston reminded the parties that the court’s standing order requires them to meet and confer before filing a joint discovery-dispute letter. The court stated that exchanging emails or other written communications does not satisfy that requirement; the parties must discuss the issues in person, by video conference, or by telephone. Future noncompliance would result in rejection of the dispute letter.