Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV29489, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29489    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for an Order Permitting Discovery from Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220 and Compelling Plaintiff to Further Respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents.

Moving Party:  Defendant John Miguel

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Jane Doe L.C.

Defendant Miguel’s Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff Jane Doe L.C. filed her Complaint against Defendants PIH Health, Inc., Alliance Emergent Care Associates, and John Miguel M.D. on the following causes of action:

(1)       Negligence;

(2)       Negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention;

(3)       Sexual harassment in violation of Civil Code §§ 51.9 and 52;

(4)       Sexual battery; and

(5)       Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On December 1, 2021, Defendant PIH Health, Inc. filed its Answer.

On November 14, 2022, Defendant John Miguel filed his Motion for an Order Permitting Discovery from Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220 and Compelling Plaintiff to Further Respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant Miguel concurrently filed: (1) Separate Statement; (2) Declaration of Suren N. Weerasuriya; and (3) Proposed Order.

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Opposition. Plaintiff concurrently filed her Proposed Order.

On January 5, 2023, Defendant Miguel filed his Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“In any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator shall establish specific facts showing that there is good cause for that discovery, and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This showing shall be made by a noticed motion, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, and shall not be made or considered by the court at an ex parte hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.220, subd. (a).)

II.        Discussion

A.      Request for Production of Documents

Defendant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to the following Request for Production:

Request for Production No. 76:

All DOCUMENTS reflecting all instances in which YOU suffered sexual harassment.

(Separate Statement, p. 2, specific definitions and descriptions omitted.)

B.      Analysis

Defendant Miguel moves the Court to issue an order: (1) permitting discovery into Plaintiff’s prior sexual history; and (2) compelling Plaintiff to further respond to Defendant Miguel’s Request for Production Number 76. (Motion, p. 6:22–24.)

Defendant Miguel argues: (1) that the material requested is highly relevant as it goes to a number of items, such as whether the conduct alleged against Defendant Miguel caused Plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress or whether the prior circumstances caused it, whether Plaintiff’s perception of the physical examination was skewed due to past events, whether Plaintiff felt because of past events that she could not withdraw consent, and whether Plaintiff has any pattern or practice of alleging sexual harassment without grounds; and (2) that there is good cause for the request because Defendant Miguel cannot take a meaningful deposition or have Plaintiff sit for a comprehensive independent medical examination without this material. (Motion, pp. 3:22–27, 4:4–10.)

Plaintiff opposed the Motion, arguing: (1) that Defendant Miguel has not shown good cause here; (2) that Plaintiff’s sexual history is a constitutionally-protected privacy right; and (3) that there are no extraordinary circumstances present to permit disclosure of Plaintiff’s sexual privacy interest. (Opposition, pp. 2:23–25, 3:25–26, 4:20–23, 7:12–13, 9:1–2.)

Defendant Miguel reiterates his arguments in his Reply, as well as arguing: (1) that on balance, Defendant Miguel’s need for the discovery outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy rights; (2) that this is not a fishing expedition; and (3) that the Court should not consider Plaintiff’s proposed extraordinary circumstances test. (Reply, pp. 2:6–7, 6:19–20, 7:16–17.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that good cause has not been shown here. Defendant Miguel’s arguments could be made in any sexual harassment case; accepting these arguments would eviscerate CCP § 2017.220, subd. (a).  While it might be the case that Plaintiff’s sexual history could be relevant to this case, the California Constitution and relevant statutes protect Plaintiff’s right to privacy – including the privacy of her sexual history. The Court cannot trump the California Constitution and the Code without good cause, which is lacking here.

Further, Defendant argues that he “solely wants information about the instances in which Plaintiff was sexually harassed. And even then, Dr. Miguel does not seek excruciating details of alleged encounters.”  (Reply, p. 4:12-14.)  But this is not true.  Defendant is seeking “All DOCUMENTS reflecting all instances in which YOU suffered sexual harassment.”  (Separate Statement, No. 76, p. 2:1.)  This would certainly encompass the “excruciating details” of other incidents of sexual harassment.

III.     Conclusion

Defendant Miguel’s Motion is DENIED.