Sandra Tomlinson, et al. v. United Behavioral Health

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] SANDRA TOMLINSON, et al., 7 Case No. 19-cv-06999-RS (JCS) Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY v. LETTER; REPORT AND 9 RECOMMENDATION RE UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, PRECLUSION OF TESTIMONY [10] Defendant. [11] Re: Dkt. No. 177 [13] UBH asks that Plaintiff “Mary Jones” (a pseudonym) be ordered to: (1) appear for a [14] deposition; (2) search for responsive documents to UBH’s document requests and supplement her [15] document production accordingly; and (3) provide a verification for her own interrogatory [16] responses. Plaintiff opposes these requests and the parties have submitted a joint discovery letter [17] addressing the dispute. Dkt. no. 177. The Court DENIES UBH’s requests for the reasons set [18] forth below. [19] Under Rule 26, parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is [20] relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the [21] importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative [22] access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving [23] the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely [24] benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Here, the burden associated with the discovery UBH seeks [25] outweighs its likely benefits. [26] First, with respect to the document discovery UBH seeks, there is no evidence that Ms. [27] Jones has any documents other than the ones that her mother – who is also her agent under a 1 durable power of attorney -- has produced. In fact, the only evidence is that Ms. Jones, who now 2 lives with her mother, has no documents. See Ex. 2 (Tomlinson Depo.) at 397. 3 Second, with respect to the interrogatories, the responses that have already been provided 4 were properly signed by an agent with a power of attorney. In light of Ms. Jones’ fragile mental 5 condition, that is sufficient. See Miller v. Holzmann, 238 F.R.D. 111, 112 (D.D.C. 2006). 6 Third, with respect to UBH’s request to depose Ms. Jones, the burden associated with 7 conducting such a deposition outweighs any potential benefit. Plaintiff has supplied a letter from 8 her psychiatrist indicating that she is in an acute and unstable condition as a result of her mental 9 health issues, and that she could not participate in or endure a deposition. Ex. 7. The psychiatrist 10 further opines that the strains of the litigation could lead to a serious deterioration of her current 11 mental health condition. Id. Moreover, according to Plaintiff’s mother, Plaintiff has previously 12 been hospitalized after attempting to commit suicide. Ex. 2 at 396. In this fragile condition, it 13 appears unlikely that Plaintiff will provide any more information on the important issues in this 14 case than that which has been provided by her mother. This is especially true for the only issue 15 highlighted by the Defendant in the joint letter: whether Plaintiff authorized her mother to assign 16 her insurance benefits when plaintiff went into in-patient care for her acute mental health 17 condition. Plaintiff was 18 at the time and is very unlikely to have any information about the 18 forms that her mother signed, or any after-the-fact ratification of an assignment. Indeed, the 19 provider testified that no assignment was required for admission. Ex. 5 (Simpson Tr.) at 137. 20 On the other hand, Plaintiff has not produced any medical records showing the diagnosis of 21 her mental condition, or treatment and current status. Plaintiff should produce those to the 22 undersigned for in camera inspection by December 15, 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel should arrange 23 for submission of this evidence through Judge Spero’s courtroom deputy, who can be reached by 24 email at jcscrd@cand.uscourts.gov. The Court will issue an order if it determines, after reviewing 25 this evidence, that any further discovery from Plaintiff is appropriate. Finally, in light of 26 Plaintiff’s inability to personally participate in discovery, I would recommend that she be barred 27 from submitting any declarations or testifying at trial in this matter. Any party may object to the 1 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. [3] 4 Dated: December 4, 2025 [5] J PH C. SPERO 6 nited States Magistrate Judge [11] a 12 [14] © [16] € = 17