SUDHIR v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, C 16-06088 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170823843
Visitors: 22
Filed: Aug. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE COUNSELS' JOINT LETTER OF AUGUST 16, 2017, RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The Court offered to hear the discovery dispute summarized in the August 16 letter on August 24, then September 6, but counsel rejected both offers. Having read the joint letter, the Court RULES as follows: The medical records sought by defendant are out of proportion to the issues in this case and plaintiff's objection is SUSTAINED. Ordinarily, when a plaintiff claims severe emoti
Summary: ORDER RE COUNSELS' JOINT LETTER OF AUGUST 16, 2017, RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The Court offered to hear the discovery dispute summarized in the August 16 letter on August 24, then September 6, but counsel rejected both offers. Having read the joint letter, the Court RULES as follows: The medical records sought by defendant are out of proportion to the issues in this case and plaintiff's objection is SUSTAINED. Ordinarily, when a plaintiff claims severe emotio..
More
ORDER RE COUNSELS' JOINT LETTER OF AUGUST 16, 2017, RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
The Court offered to hear the discovery dispute summarized in the August 16 letter on August 24, then September 6, but counsel rejected both offers. Having read the joint letter, the Court RULES as follows:
The medical records sought by defendant are out of proportion to the issues in this case and plaintiff's objection is SUSTAINED. Ordinarily, when a plaintiff claims severe emotional distress, the other side is entitled to medical records to test the claim, but in this case plaintiff will not be allowed to claim "severe emotional distress" because of plaintiff's refusal to provide medical records. The most that plaintiff may seek to establish would be the garden variety emotional distress, and neither plaintiff nor his counsel may in any way suggest that the emotional distress was "severe" nor, of course, may plaintiff use a medical expert on this question. Plaintiff and plaintiff only can testify to the garden variety emotional distress. In the event that the testimony extends beyond the garden variety emotional distress, the Court will advise the jury that plaintiff refused to provide medical records to test this assertion and that it is unfair for plaintiff to seek more than the garden variety emotional distress.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
