Owens v. Fluz Fluz LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Owens v. Fluz Fluz LLC, No. 24-cv-01083-MMC (TSH) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2025) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · March 21, 2025 · No. 24-cv-01083-MMC (TSH)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California addresses a discovery dispute concerning redactions to Plaintiff’s medical records. Applying California privilege law, the Court holds that Plaintiff waived the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges only as to Lyme disease, Epstein-Barr virus, post-concussive syndrome, physical pain resulting from those conditions, and emotional distress. The Court permits redaction of unrelated medical information and orders the parties to submit a further joint discovery letter brief and records for in camera review.

Holdings

  1. By placing Lyme disease, Epstein-Barr virus, post-concussive syndrome, physical pain resulting from those conditions, and emotional distress at issue, Plaintiff waived the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges as to information concerning those conditions and injuries, but not as to unrelated medical conditions.
  2. When a medical appointment concerns both a condition placed at issue and a condition not placed at issue, waiver attaches only to the portions of the record concerning the condition at issue, and the remaining portions may be redacted.
  3. Plaintiff's authorization allowing medical providers to provide records to his attorney did not waive privilege as to Defendant.
  4. Defendant was not entitled to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 because it had not yet obtained relief.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff waived the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges by placing particular medical conditions and emotional and physical injuries at issue in the lawsuit.
  2. Whether privilege waiver extends to unrelated medical conditions merely because they were addressed during the same medical appointment as a condition placed at issue.
  3. Whether Plaintiff's authorization for medical providers to release records to his attorney waived privilege as to Defendant.
  4. Whether Defendant was entitled to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (3)

  • In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal. 3d 415, 435-36 (1970)(followed)
  • City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 2d 227, 232 (1951)(followed)
  • Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844, 849, 862-64 (1978)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…