Preview
1MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690)
2 i briscoe@miavallaw.com FILED/ENDORSED
3 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, CaUfornia 95207-8253 SEP - 8 2022
4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833
FacsimUe: (209)473-4818 By:
5 Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual, Case No.: 34-2019-00265393
10 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF
«
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
11. vs. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S
12" THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; MOTION TO COMPEL SIGNATURE ON
and DOES 1-100, inclusive. AUTHORIZATION FORM AND
13 COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA, AND
Defendants. FOR SANCTIONS
14
15 Date: September 21, 2022
Time: 1:30 p.m.
16 Dept.: 53
Res.: 2660532
17
18
19
20
, Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge") submits the following Memorandum of Points and
21
Authorities in opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion to Compel Signature
22
on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena, and for Sanctions.
23
In its motion, Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol ("CHP") seeks an order that, inter
24
alia, would compel Ridge or counsel to sign a form which would release all treatment records
25
pertaining to treatment of Ridge, by marriage andfamily therapist Kay Williams. Clearly,
26
insofar as CHP would seek to compel Ridge's attomeys to sign this release form, the motion is
27
Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion
28 to Compel Sign^twgtife-Authorization Form and Compliance with Subpoena, and for Sanctions
>
1 improper: Ridge's attomeys have zero authority to themselves authorize disclosure of their
2 client's therapy records, and CHP posits no authority holding otherwise. Indeed, CHP dedicates
3 no argument whatsoever to this proposition.
4 Ftirther, CHP's records subpoena is overbroad and intmdes upon the patient-
5 psychotherapist privilege. (See Evid. Code, § 1010 etseq.) In general, courts have been reluctant
6 to allow discovery into medical or psychiatric history if the plaintiff's claimed emotional distress
7 is "garden variety." (See EEOC v. Serramonte (N.D. Cal. 2006) 237 F.R.D. 220, 222.) In the
8 matter of Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4* 1008, the Court of Appeal held that the
9 plaintiffs psychotherapy records were not discoverable, because the plaintiff sought only
10 "garden variety" emotional distress damages associated with the claimed injuries. The Davis
11 courtfirstnoted that the plaintiff had not, by mere virtue of claiming emotional distress, waived
12" her establishedrightto medical and psychiatric privacy. "[AJIthough there may be an implicit
13 partial waiver [of privacy], the scope of such waiver must be narrowly, rather than expansively
14 constmed, so that plaintiffs will not be imduly deterredfi-ominstituting lawsuits by fear of
15 exposure of private activities. {Id. at p. 1014 [citing Vinson v. Superior Couri (1987) 43 Cal.3d
16 833, 842].) "[T]he extent to which a mental component may be in issue in a particular suit
17 depends upon the facts of a particular case." {Id. at p. 1016 [citing Roberis v. Superior Court
18 (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 338-339.)
19 In this case. Ridge claims that he was denied reasonable accommodations for a physical
20 disability, and thereby compelled to apply for eju^ly medical retirement. He already expressed a
21 willingness to stipulate that he will not seek anything further than garden variety emotional
22 distress damages. (See Declaration of James F. Ciuran, Exhibit 11.) Ridge also stipulated—in a
23 further, good faith meet-and-confer effort so as to avoid this motion—that, if CHP would "forgo
24 intmding into Officer Ridge's private psychiatricfiles",he would not submit any expert
25 testimony in support of his claims for emotional distress. {Id., Exhibit 14 [July 18, 2022 email
26 fi-om John P. Briscoe].) CHP, determined toriflethrough Ms. Williams' entire psychiatricfileon
27 Ridge, rejected these overtures.
28 PlaintiflPs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion
to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance with Subpoena, and for Sanctions
1 Furthermore, and as demonstrated by CHP's own filings, the subpoena at issue is
2 woefully overbroad. It seeks, essentially, Ms. Williams' complete psychiatric file on Ridge. (See
3 Declaration of James Curran, Exhibit 6.) As CHP itself notes:
4 "The patient-litigant exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege allows
5 only a limited inquiry into the confidences of psychotherapist-patient relationship,
6 compelling disclosiu-e of only those matters directly relevant to the nature of the
7 specific emotional or mental condition which the patient has volimtarily disclosed
8 and tendered in his pleadings or in an answer to discovery inquiries. [Citation.]"
9 (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel ["Motion"], 8:17-21
10 [citing In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415,434].) Yet, CHP has not sought records which relate
11 merely to Ridge's employment with CHP and the circumstances which gave rise to this action;
12" rather, it seeks every single document which Ms. Williams has on Ridge. Since Ms. Williams is,
13 as CHP concedes, a marriage and family therapist, it stands to reason that many, if not most of
14 the records sought will relate to Ridge's private family life' and not to his employment with
15 CHP.
16 Last, CHP's request for sanctions against Ridge's counsel is utterly imjustified. The
17 undersigned is without the authority and power to himself authorize release of the sought records.
18 Moreover, and as demonstrated by the Declaration of James Curran, he met and conferred with
19 coimsel for CHP in a good faith effort to avoid this motion. He cited legal authority, supra,
20 acciuately standing for the proposition that a plaintiff does not waive wholesale his or her
21 psychiatric privacy by filing a lawsuit. {Id., Exhibits 11 [May 31 email ft-om Briscoe], 14 [July
22 18 and 20 emails fi-om Briscoe].) He also offered to stipulate that he would seek nothing fiirther
23 than garden variety emotional distress damages, and that he would not introduce any expert
24 testimony as to such damages. He asked opposing coimsel if he had any additional legal
25
26
27 ' See Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4* 1379, 1388 (holding that marital relationship serves as
foundation for right to privacy).
28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion
to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance with Subpoena, and for Sanctions
1 authority to disclose, but CHP's next move was to file this motion. Even if the Covut were to
2 grant this motion, monetary sanctions against counsel would be unwarranted and improper.
3 For the foregoing reasons, CHP's motion should be denied in full.
4 ///
5 DATED: September 7, 2022 MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
6
7 By_
JOHN P. BRISCOE
8 Attomeys for Plaintiff
9 DAVID RIDGE
10
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion
to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance with Subpoena, and for Sanctions
Ridge V. Califomia highway Patrol, et al.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I , the undersigned, certify and declare as follows:
3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2453
Grand Canal Boulevard, Stockton, Califomia 95207 that is located in the county where the mailing
4 and/or delivery below took place.
5 On September 7, 2022,1 served the following document:
6 PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S
7 MOTION TO COMPEL SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FORM AND
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA, AND FOR SANCTIONS
8
addressed to:
9
James F. Curran
10 Deputy Attomey General
P.O. Box 944255
11 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
James.Curran@doj.ca.gov
12 Christopher Irby
Christopher. irbv@doi .ca. gov
13
• BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: I am readily familiar widi
14 the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for
mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is
15 deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.
On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, Califomia a copy of the document
16 described above was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope,
with postage ftilly prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or entities mentioned above; and that
17 envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice.
18
0 BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified
below, I caused a copy of the document(s) described above to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail
19
address(es) listed above. My business e-mail address is lriley(a),mayallaw.com. I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
20
transmission was unsuccessful.
21
I certify and declare under penalfy of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on September 7,2022, at Lodi, Califomia.
22
23
24
25
26
17,
28 mow w sȴiicE - a
Preview
1MAYALL HURLEY P.C. JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690) 2 i briscoe@miavallaw.com FILED/ENDORSED 3 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CaUfornia 95207-8253 SEP - 8 2022 4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 FacsimUe: (209)473-4818 By: 5 Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual, Case No.: 34-2019-00265393 10 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF « POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 11. vs. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S 12" THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; MOTION TO COMPEL SIGNATURE ON and DOES 1-100, inclusive. AUTHORIZATION FORM AND 13 COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA, AND Defendants. FOR SANCTIONS 14 15 Date: September 21, 2022 Time: 1:30 p.m. 16 Dept.: 53 Res.: 2660532 17 18 19 20 , Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge") submits the following Memorandum of Points and 21 Authorities in opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion to Compel Signature 22 on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena, and for Sanctions. 23 In its motion, Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol ("CHP") seeks an order that, inter 24 alia, would compel Ridge or counsel to sign a form which would release all treatment records 25 pertaining to treatment of Ridge, by marriage andfamily therapist Kay Williams. Clearly, 26 insofar as CHP would seek to compel Ridge's attomeys to sign this release form, the motion is 27 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion 28 to Compel Sign^twgtife-Authorization Form and Compliance with Subpoena, and for Sanctions > 1 improper: Ridge's attomeys have zero authority to themselves authorize disclosure of their 2 client's therapy records, and CHP posits no authority holding otherwise. Indeed, CHP dedicates 3 no argument whatsoever to this proposition. 4 Ftirther, CHP's records subpoena is overbroad and intmdes upon the patient- 5 psychotherapist privilege. (See Evid. Code, § 1010 etseq.) In general, courts have been reluctant 6 to allow discovery into medical or psychiatric history if the plaintiff's claimed emotional distress 7 is "garden variety." (See EEOC v. Serramonte (N.D. Cal. 2006) 237 F.R.D. 220, 222.) In the 8 matter of Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4* 1008, the Court of Appeal held that the 9 plaintiffs psychotherapy records were not discoverable, because the plaintiff sought only 10 "garden variety" emotional distress damages associated with the claimed injuries. The Davis 11 courtfirstnoted that the plaintiff had not, by mere virtue of claiming emotional distress, waived 12" her establishedrightto medical and psychiatric privacy. "[AJIthough there may be an implicit 13 partial waiver [of privacy], the scope of such waiver must be narrowly, rather than expansively 14 constmed, so that plaintiffs will not be imduly deterredfi-ominstituting lawsuits by fear of 15 exposure of private activities. {Id. at p. 1014 [citing Vinson v. Superior Couri (1987) 43 Cal.3d 16 833, 842].) "[T]he extent to which a mental component may be in issue in a particular suit 17 depends upon the facts of a particular case." {Id. at p. 1016 [citing Roberis v. Superior Court 18 (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 338-339.) 19 In this case. Ridge claims that he was denied reasonable accommodations for a physical 20 disability, and thereby compelled to apply for eju^ly medical retirement. He already expressed a 21 willingness to stipulate that he will not seek anything further than garden variety emotional 22 distress damages. (See Declaration of James F. Ciuran, Exhibit 11.) Ridge also stipulated—in a 23 further, good faith meet-and-confer effort so as to avoid this motion—that, if CHP would "forgo 24 intmding into Officer Ridge's private psychiatricfiles",he would not submit any expert 25 testimony in support of his claims for emotional distress. {Id., Exhibit 14 [July 18, 2022 email 26 fi-om John P. Briscoe].) CHP, determined toriflethrough Ms. Williams' entire psychiatricfileon 27 Ridge, rejected these overtures. 28 PlaintiflPs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance with Subpoena, and for Sanctions 1 Furthermore, and as demonstrated by CHP's own filings, the subpoena at issue is 2 woefully overbroad. It seeks, essentially, Ms. Williams' complete psychiatric file on Ridge. (See 3 Declaration of James Curran, Exhibit 6.) As CHP itself notes: 4 "The patient-litigant exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege allows 5 only a limited inquiry into the confidences of psychotherapist-patient relationship, 6 compelling disclosiu-e of only those matters directly relevant to the nature of the 7 specific emotional or mental condition which the patient has volimtarily disclosed 8 and tendered in his pleadings or in an answer to discovery inquiries. [Citation.]" 9 (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel ["Motion"], 8:17-21 10 [citing In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415,434].) Yet, CHP has not sought records which relate 11 merely to Ridge's employment with CHP and the circumstances which gave rise to this action; 12" rather, it seeks every single document which Ms. Williams has on Ridge. Since Ms. Williams is, 13 as CHP concedes, a marriage and family therapist, it stands to reason that many, if not most of 14 the records sought will relate to Ridge's private family life' and not to his employment with 15 CHP. 16 Last, CHP's request for sanctions against Ridge's counsel is utterly imjustified. The 17 undersigned is without the authority and power to himself authorize release of the sought records. 18 Moreover, and as demonstrated by the Declaration of James Curran, he met and conferred with 19 coimsel for CHP in a good faith effort to avoid this motion. He cited legal authority, supra, 20 acciuately standing for the proposition that a plaintiff does not waive wholesale his or her 21 psychiatric privacy by filing a lawsuit. {Id., Exhibits 11 [May 31 email ft-om Briscoe], 14 [July 22 18 and 20 emails fi-om Briscoe].) He also offered to stipulate that he would seek nothing fiirther 23 than garden variety emotional distress damages, and that he would not introduce any expert 24 testimony as to such damages. He asked opposing coimsel if he had any additional legal 25 26 27 ' See Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4* 1379, 1388 (holding that marital relationship serves as foundation for right to privacy). 28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance with Subpoena, and for Sanctions 1 authority to disclose, but CHP's next move was to file this motion. Even if the Covut were to 2 grant this motion, monetary sanctions against counsel would be unwarranted and improper. 3 For the foregoing reasons, CHP's motion should be denied in full. 4 /// 5 DATED: September 7, 2022 MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 6 7 By_ JOHN P. BRISCOE 8 Attomeys for Plaintiff 9 DAVID RIDGE 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Califomia Highway Patrol's Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance with Subpoena, and for Sanctions Ridge V. Califomia highway Patrol, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I , the undersigned, certify and declare as follows: 3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Stockton, Califomia 95207 that is located in the county where the mailing 4 and/or delivery below took place. 5 On September 7, 2022,1 served the following document: 6 PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S 7 MOTION TO COMPEL SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA, AND FOR SANCTIONS 8 addressed to: 9 James F. Curran 10 Deputy Attomey General P.O. Box 944255 11 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 James.Curran@doj.ca.gov 12 Christopher Irby Christopher. irbv@doi .ca. gov 13 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: I am readily familiar widi 14 the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is 15 deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, Califomia a copy of the document 16 described above was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, with postage ftilly prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or entities mentioned above; and that 17 envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice. 18 0 BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified below, I caused a copy of the document(s) described above to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail 19 address(es) listed above. My business e-mail address is lriley(a),mayallaw.com. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the 20 transmission was unsuccessful. 21 I certify and declare under penalfy of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on September 7,2022, at Lodi, Califomia. 22 23 24 25 26 17, 28 mow w s»¥iicE - a