Pauly v. Stanford Health Care

Background

Pauly alleged that Stanford Health Care failed to provide proper medical care in November and December 2008. The court was addressing the parties’ fifth discovery dispute and Pauly’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions. Discovery is the pretrial process in which parties exchange information and documents.

Pauly claimed that Stanford’s medical records omitted her chief complaint from 2008. Stanford submitted an audit trail stating that the information appeared in different sections of the medical records. After reviewing the records, the court found that the chief-complaint information was present and denied Pauly’s request for additional discovery of those medical records.

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Pauly sought terminating sanctions—severe penalties that can end a case or result in judgment against a party—for several alleged failures by Stanford: allegedly redacting the Medical Transport Program Call Record (MTPCR), failing to comply with the court’s order to produce treatment-related policies and procedures, failing to identify all individuals with potentially discoverable information, and failing to admit matters in requests for admission.

The court found that Pauly had not established spoliation, meaning the destruction or significant alteration of evidence. Stanford stated that it had an original color copy of the MTPCR and that the apparent pixelation in Pauly’s black-and-white copy resulted from color shading, not redaction. The court ordered Stanford to produce the color copy to resolve the confusion.

The court also found that Stanford’s delay in producing its November and December 2008 policies and procedures could be addressed by setting a deadline. The earlier order had not set a production deadline, and the court found that the delay did not clearly cause sufficient prejudice, particularly because fact discovery was scheduled to close on May 6, 2022.

The court rejected Pauly’s argument that Stanford had to identify every person who might possess discoverable evidence. The applicable rule required disclosure of each individual likely to have discoverable information whom Stanford might use to support its claims or defenses, subject to the rule’s exception for impeachment-only use. The court stated that if Stanford later tried to use a witness it had not disclosed, Rule 37 could restrict that use unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.

As to the requests for admission, the court found that Pauly had not yet proved the truth of the matters she claimed Stanford should have admitted. The court stated that Pauly could later seek sanctions if she proved the matters and otherwise met the requirements for such sanctions.

Ruling and Other Orders

The court considered whether Pauly had shown the willfulness, bad faith, fault, and prejudice needed for terminating sanctions. It found insufficient prejudice and concluded that lesser measures were available. The court therefore denied Pauly’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

The court ordered Stanford to produce a color copy of the MTPCR and Stanford’s November 2008 and December 2008 policies and procedures relating to Pauly’s treatment by March 21, 2022.

The court granted Pauly’s two administrative motions to seal her medical records. It also overruled as moot Stanford’s objections to evidence submitted by Pauly because the court did not rely on the challenged evidence.