Wills v. City of Monterey

Background

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros to resolve discovery disputes. Montage Health submitted a discovery letter seeking to compel further discovery responses from Cynthia S. Wills, who was proceeding without a lawyer. Montage Health asserted that Wills had refused to meet and confer or help prepare a joint discovery letter. Wills responded that her answers and objections were adequate and said she had tried to contact Montage Health’s counsel.

The underlying claims against Montage Health concern Wills’s allegation that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state and federal laws by separating her from her service dog while she received emergency treatment at the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula and by demanding documentation about the dog. The opinion also states that Judge Edward M. Chen had dismissed most of Wills’s claims against the City of Monterey, leaving an Eighth Amendment claim against the City; that earlier ruling was not decided in this discovery order.

Meet-and-Confer Requirement

The court rejected Wills’s interpretation of Judge Chen’s earlier instructions that the parties communicate by regular mail. The court understood those instructions to require written communications to be sent by mail, not to prohibit telephone or in-person discussions. The court also noted that Judge Chen had specifically required telephone communication in appropriate circumstances. For future discovery disputes, the parties must follow Magistrate Judge Cisneros’s standing order, modified to permit telephone conferences as an alternative because of Wills’s limited computer access.

Medical Privacy and Sealing

The court held that no federal doctor-patient privilege protected Wills’s physical-health information from discovery in this case. It nevertheless recognized Wills’s significant privacy interest in her medical history. The court therefore ordered that defendants could not disclose medical-treatment or medical-condition details learned through discovery to third parties unless Wills consented, had already publicly disclosed the information, or the court had previously ordered it filed publicly. Defendants could share the information with litigation agents who agreed to follow the same restrictions.

The court also ordered Montage Health’s discovery letter to remain under seal based on good cause. Montage Health had to file a public version with narrow redactions concerning references to a purported statement by Wills, including references in Requests for Admission Nos. 1 through 3.

Interrogatories

The court ordered Wills to supplement her answer to Interrogatory No. 2 by identifying all special work or tasks her dog was trained to perform as of March 25, 2019. Her general reference to “other special work and/or tasks” was too vague, and the court overruled her objections.

For Interrogatory No. 3, the court ordered Wills to identify, to the best of her personal knowledge after reasonable inquiry, healthcare providers who treated the disability underlying her Americans with Disabilities Act claim. She did not need to identify providers at the hospital or through Montage Health, because Montage Health presumably had access to that information. If she had seen no other providers, she had to say so.

For Interrogatory No. 6, the court ordered Wills to identify, to the best of her knowledge, all providers of medical treatment for emotional distress that she alleged resulted from Montage Health’s conduct.

The court denied Montage Health’s request for further answers as to Interrogatory Nos. 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3. Those requests concerned statements or admissions that Wills denied making, and the court found it unclear what additional facts she could provide about statements she said did not occur. The court stated that if it had misunderstood Wills and she did not intend an outright denial, she would need to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 7-1.

The court ordered Wills to supplement her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7-4 and 7-5. She had to explain any special training her dog had received as a service animal as of March 25, 2019, and what services the dog provided in relation to any disability she had at that time.

Requests for Production

The court ordered Wills to produce documents responsive to three requests for production, subject to limits. The documents concerned her claimed disability, her dog’s training, and communications with healthcare providers about health conditions she intended to assert as relevant to her claims. The requests were limited to documents in Wills’s possession. The third request was limited to communications about medical conditions she intended to rely on, and it excluded communications with Montage Health employees.

Wills could mail copies to Montage Health or arrange for duplication or scanning at Montage Health’s expense. If she had no responsive documents, she had to state that. If she withheld documents based on privilege, she had to provide the required privilege information under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sanctions and Disposition

The court denied Montage Health’s request for monetary or other sanctions and denied its request for permission to file a later sanctions motion. The court warned that continued failure to comply with discovery obligations, continued frivolous objections, or continued failure to follow discovery procedures could lead to sanctions, potentially including dismissal of Wills’s claims.

The court concluded that the requests in Montage Health’s discovery letter were granted in part and denied in part. Wills had to provide the supplemental interrogatory responses and documents by March 22, 2024. Defendants had to follow the medical-information disclosure restrictions, and Montage Health had to file the redacted public version of its discovery letter by March 15, 2024. The City of Monterey’s separate discovery letter was scheduled for a later hearing and was not resolved by this order.