Preview
ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
KRISTIN M . DAILY
a Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JAMES F. CURRAN FILED/ENDORSED
Deputy Attorney General
4 'State'BarNo. 142041
1300.1 Street, Suite 125
NOV 2 2 2022
-5 P.O. BOX 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 By: Deoutv Clerli
;6 Telephone: (916)210-6113
Fax: (916) 324-5567
.7. E-mail: James.Curran@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
8 California Highway Patrol
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
II'
12
1.3
DAVID RIDGE, Case No. 34-2019-00265393
.14
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
:15 PATROL'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CHP'S SECOND
16 MOTION TO COMPEL SIGNATURE ON
AUTHORIZATION FORM AND
.17 THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
and DOES 1-100, inclusive.
.18 Date: December 1, 2022 -
Defendants. Time: 1:30 PM
19 Dept: .53
Judge: Hon Richard K. Sueyoshi
20 Reservation: 2690025
Action Filed: September 23, 2019
21
22 INTRODUCTION
23 Defendant California Highway Patrol (CHP) hereby submits its reply to Plaintiff David
24 Ridge's opposition to CHP's Second Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and
25 Compliance with Subpoena with respect to the treatment records of Kay Williams, MFT.
26 LEGAL ARGUMENT
27 The question presented by this motion is whether CHP should be allowed to discover
28 Ms. Williams' records of treatment of Plaintiff for only emotional distress allegedly caused by
CHPt's Reply to Pltf's 0pp. to Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Form (34-2019-00265393)
.1 CHP, or whether CHP should be allowed lo discover her records of .treatment of Plaintiff for .
2 emotional,distress caused by non-work-related stressors in addition to distress allegedly caused ,
3 by CHP. CHP should be allowed to obtain Ms. Williams' records on her treatment of Plaintiff for
j4 emotional distress caused either by CHP or by other factors; i.e., non-work-related stressors, on. .
5 stressors caused by other employers, events or persons. The case law on waiver of the- ,;•
.6 psychotherapist-patient privilege makes clear that litigants who place at issue emotional distress,
7 like Plaintiff Ridge, who claims ongoing "depression, anxiety and emotional distress," wai ve that
8 privilege as to records of treatment for those conditions regardless of cause, and not just as to
9 emotional distress allegedly caused by the defendants in their lawsuits. ; • •, .
10 With respect to Plaintiff Ridge, he has waived the privilege as to recprds of treatment for
11 anxiety, depression or emotional distress caused by any source, incjuding his divorce, his family;.,
.12 situation,,or.other factors and events distinct from CHP's alleged misconduct. Plaintiff has .
13 placed at issue those three categories of complaints by responding the way he did lo:Ernployment
.1.4 Law Fprrn Interrogatories Nos. 212.1 through 212.5. (See,Curran Dec.,f5,;and Plaintiff s. ;
15 Responses, Exh. 5 to the Curran Dec, at 10:7-11:25.) ;
16 In response to Interrogatories Nos. 212.1 and 212.2, Plaintiff listed, as complaints of ,
17 mental injury that he attributes to the adverse employment actions at issue in this lawsuit:
1.8 "Depression, anxiety, emotional distress." (See Curran Dec.,^ 5, and Plaintiffs Responses, Exh.
19 5, at 10:7-18.) Plaintiff states his depression, anxiety, and emotional distress are "becoming
20 worse," and that the frequency of these symptoms is "Every couple of hours." (Curran Dec, Exh,
21 5, at 10:18-26.) Plaintiff states he received treatment from Kay Williams beginning in January
22 2018 and that the treatment he received from Ms. Williams continued on a monthly basis
23 thereafter, (Curran Dec, Exh. 5, at 11:5-9.) Plaintiff states he took Celexa, an antidepressant,
24 and C!lonazepam, a benzodiazepine used to treat, among other things, panic disorder, for the
25 injuries he attributes to the adverse employment actions giving rise to this lawsuit. {Id., at 11:10-
26 25.)
27 It would be unfair to deprive CHP of the opportunity to take discovery of records of
28 treatment by Ms. Williams of Plaintiff s depression, anxiety, or emotional distress regardless of
2
: CHPt's Reply to Pltf s Opp. to Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Form (34-2019-00265393)
1 the cause of those complaints. Ms. Williams' records might show the emotional distress Plaintiff
2 experienced, during the time she treated him, was wholly or partially caused by non-CHP-related
3 persons or events. Plaintiff testified at deposition that he first saw Ms. Williams for ,
.4 psychotherapy in 2010. (Curran Dec, Exh. 11 [Depo. transcript], 199:4-200:13.) Still, CHP has
5 agreed to restrict its subpoena to the period from January 1, 2018 to the present.
6 If Plaintiff suffered anxiety, depression, or emotional distress due to non-work-related ,
7 events, CHP should be allowed to present evidence at trial of the treatment Plaintiff underwent as
8 a result of those symptoms or that distress. CHP should be allowed to depose Plaintiff about this
9 evidence, including events or causes mentioned in the records of such treatment by Ms. Williams.
10 CHP should also be allowed to forward records of Ms. Williams' treatment of Plaintiff for both
11 CHP-related, and non-CHP-related, stressors to its forensic psychologist and psychiatrist so that
12 they can conduct mental examinations of Plaintiff, and so that they can form opinions and
13 conclusions, compose reports, and testify at trial concerning the causes of Plaintiffs emotional
14 distress.
•\ 5 This Court cited Brill v. Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port Dislricl) (1978) 20 Cal.3d
16 844, in its final ruling on the first Kay Williams motion {see Minute Order of September 26,
17 2022, on file herein, at p. 3). That case makes clear that plaintiffs waive the psychotherapist-
18 patient privilege concerning the medical conditions they have put in issue in the litigation, not
19 just the medical conditions allegedly caused by the defendant. (Britt, at p. 849 ["although in
20 seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their
21 physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges as to all information concerning the
22 medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends
23 only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically
24 open all of a plaintiffs past medical history to scrutiny." [emphasis in the original].)
25 Furthermore, to limit the subpoena to records of treatment for depression, anxiety or
26 emotional distress "caused only by CHP," is hopelessly impractical. As CHP asked in its moving
27 papers, what if Ms. Williams' records do not clearly state what Plaintiff claimed, in any given
28 therapy session, to be the "cause" of his anxiety, depression, or emotional distress? To the extent
3 ' "' •
CHPt's Reply to Pltf's Opp. lo Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Form (34-2019-00265393)
1 she might have recorded the alleged cause of any given symptom, what if Ms. Williams'
,2 treatment notes were based on Plaintiff s subjective interpretation of events? What if her
3 treatment notes were based on Plaintiffs lay opinions on causation? What, if her records reflect
4 that Plaintiff was feeling suicidal because of his family situation? What if her records attribute
5 ongoing emotional distress to both CHP-caused events and non-CHP-caused events?, In any of
6 these situations, the records would be indisputably relevant to Plaintiffs emotional distress
7 damages claim. Therapists rarely list the cause of each symptom in every treatment note. Their
8 treatment notes commonly describe the symptoms and the therapy rendered without any
9 discussion of causation.
10 Even if Plaintiff attributed, during any given session with Ms. Williams, his depression
11 solely to CHP's misconduct, CHP still should be allowed to present evidence that Plaintiff was
12 going through non-work-related stressful situations during the same time period in order to
13 defend against Plaintiffs noneconomic damages claims. References to such non-work-related
14 stressors could very well be in Ms. Williams' records. CHP should not be blocked from
15 presenting those records to its experts or to the jury because that would be unfair. If only records,
16 of distress "by CHP" were presented, the jury might conclude CHP was the cause of all of
17 Plaintiffs depression or anxiety based on Plaintiffs self-serving statements to Ms. Williams.
18 CHP also should be permitted to question Plaintiff at further sessions of his deposition about
19 these entries in Ms. Williams' records in order to develop evidence to defend against Plaintiffs
20 noneconomic damages claims.
21 Accordingly, CHP respectfully requests that the court (1) order Plaintiff to sign the
22 applicable release to allow copying of Ms. Williams' treatment records from the period between
23 January 1, 2018 and the present, (2) clarify in its order that the scope of the subpoefia and of the
24 records to be produced should not be limited to records of treatment for emotional distress caused
25 by CHP, but, rather, to records of treatment during that time period for depression, anxiety or
26 emotional distress caused by any source, event, person or entity, and (3) order Ms. Williams to
27 ///
28
4 '
CHPt's Reply to Pltf's Opp. to Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Form (34-2019-00265393)
comply with the subpoena concerning her treatment records as limited intimeand scope by the
2 court's order.
Dated: November 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
3
ROB BONTA
4 Attorney General of California
KRISTIN M. DAILY
5 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
6
. 7
8 " JAMES F. CURRAN
Deputy Attorney General
9 Attorneys for Defendant
California Highway Patrol
.10
SA2019I06238
11
12
13
14
15
16
,17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CHPt's Reply to Pltf's Opp. to Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Forni (34-2019-00265393)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL
Case Name: David Ridge v. CHP
No.: 34-2019-00265393
1 declare:
1 am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
C^alifornia State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. 1 am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal
mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States
Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On November 22. 2022.1 served the attached DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO CHP'S SECOND MOTION TO
COMPEL SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH
SUBPOENA by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail addressed as-follows:
John P. Briscoe Kay Williams, MA, MFT
Mayall Hudey P.C. E-mail Address:
E-mail Address: pvheron(a),gmail.com
|briscoe@mavallaw.com
lrilev(g),mavallaw.com
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November
22, 2022, at Sacramento, California.
Christopher R. Irby 8/ Christopher R. Irby "
Declarant Signature
SA:0I91062.18
36732l99.docx
Preview
ROB BONTA Attorney General of California KRISTIN M . DAILY a Supervising Deputy Attorney General JAMES F. CURRAN FILED/ENDORSED Deputy Attorney General 4 'State'BarNo. 142041 1300.1 Street, Suite 125 NOV 2 2 2022 -5 P.O. BOX 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 By: Deoutv Clerli ;6 Telephone: (916)210-6113 Fax: (916) 324-5567 .7. E-mail: James.Curran@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendant 8 California Highway Patrol 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO II' 12 1.3 DAVID RIDGE, Case No. 34-2019-00265393 .14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY :15 PATROL'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO CHP'S SECOND 16 MOTION TO COMPEL SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FORM AND .17 THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA and DOES 1-100, inclusive. .18 Date: December 1, 2022 - Defendants. Time: 1:30 PM 19 Dept: .53 Judge: Hon Richard K. Sueyoshi 20 Reservation: 2690025 Action Filed: September 23, 2019 21 22 INTRODUCTION 23 Defendant California Highway Patrol (CHP) hereby submits its reply to Plaintiff David 24 Ridge's opposition to CHP's Second Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and 25 Compliance with Subpoena with respect to the treatment records of Kay Williams, MFT. 26 LEGAL ARGUMENT 27 The question presented by this motion is whether CHP should be allowed to discover 28 Ms. Williams' records of treatment of Plaintiff for only emotional distress allegedly caused by CHPt's Reply to Pltf's 0pp. to Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Form (34-2019-00265393) .1 CHP, or whether CHP should be allowed lo discover her records of .treatment of Plaintiff for . 2 emotional,distress caused by non-work-related stressors in addition to distress allegedly caused , 3 by CHP. CHP should be allowed to obtain Ms. Williams' records on her treatment of Plaintiff for j4 emotional distress caused either by CHP or by other factors; i.e., non-work-related stressors, on. . 5 stressors caused by other employers, events or persons. The case law on waiver of the- ,;• .6 psychotherapist-patient privilege makes clear that litigants who place at issue emotional distress, 7 like Plaintiff Ridge, who claims ongoing "depression, anxiety and emotional distress," wai ve that 8 privilege as to records of treatment for those conditions regardless of cause, and not just as to 9 emotional distress allegedly caused by the defendants in their lawsuits. ; • •, . 10 With respect to Plaintiff Ridge, he has waived the privilege as to recprds of treatment for 11 anxiety, depression or emotional distress caused by any source, incjuding his divorce, his family;., .12 situation,,or.other factors and events distinct from CHP's alleged misconduct. Plaintiff has . 13 placed at issue those three categories of complaints by responding the way he did lo:Ernployment .1.4 Law Fprrn Interrogatories Nos. 212.1 through 212.5. (See,Curran Dec.,f5,;and Plaintiff s. ; 15 Responses, Exh. 5 to the Curran Dec, at 10:7-11:25.) ; 16 In response to Interrogatories Nos. 212.1 and 212.2, Plaintiff listed, as complaints of , 17 mental injury that he attributes to the adverse employment actions at issue in this lawsuit: 1.8 "Depression, anxiety, emotional distress." (See Curran Dec.,^ 5, and Plaintiffs Responses, Exh. 19 5, at 10:7-18.) Plaintiff states his depression, anxiety, and emotional distress are "becoming 20 worse," and that the frequency of these symptoms is "Every couple of hours." (Curran Dec, Exh, 21 5, at 10:18-26.) Plaintiff states he received treatment from Kay Williams beginning in January 22 2018 and that the treatment he received from Ms. Williams continued on a monthly basis 23 thereafter, (Curran Dec, Exh. 5, at 11:5-9.) Plaintiff states he took Celexa, an antidepressant, 24 and C!lonazepam, a benzodiazepine used to treat, among other things, panic disorder, for the 25 injuries he attributes to the adverse employment actions giving rise to this lawsuit. {Id., at 11:10- 26 25.) 27 It would be unfair to deprive CHP of the opportunity to take discovery of records of 28 treatment by Ms. Williams of Plaintiff s depression, anxiety, or emotional distress regardless of 2 : CHPt's Reply to Pltf s Opp. to Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Form (34-2019-00265393) 1 the cause of those complaints. Ms. Williams' records might show the emotional distress Plaintiff 2 experienced, during the time she treated him, was wholly or partially caused by non-CHP-related 3 persons or events. Plaintiff testified at deposition that he first saw Ms. Williams for , .4 psychotherapy in 2010. (Curran Dec, Exh. 11 [Depo. transcript], 199:4-200:13.) Still, CHP has 5 agreed to restrict its subpoena to the period from January 1, 2018 to the present. 6 If Plaintiff suffered anxiety, depression, or emotional distress due to non-work-related , 7 events, CHP should be allowed to present evidence at trial of the treatment Plaintiff underwent as 8 a result of those symptoms or that distress. CHP should be allowed to depose Plaintiff about this 9 evidence, including events or causes mentioned in the records of such treatment by Ms. Williams. 10 CHP should also be allowed to forward records of Ms. Williams' treatment of Plaintiff for both 11 CHP-related, and non-CHP-related, stressors to its forensic psychologist and psychiatrist so that 12 they can conduct mental examinations of Plaintiff, and so that they can form opinions and 13 conclusions, compose reports, and testify at trial concerning the causes of Plaintiffs emotional 14 distress. •\ 5 This Court cited Brill v. Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port Dislricl) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 16 844, in its final ruling on the first Kay Williams motion {see Minute Order of September 26, 17 2022, on file herein, at p. 3). That case makes clear that plaintiffs waive the psychotherapist- 18 patient privilege concerning the medical conditions they have put in issue in the litigation, not 19 just the medical conditions allegedly caused by the defendant. (Britt, at p. 849 ["although in 20 seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their 21 physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges as to all information concerning the 22 medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends 23 only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically 24 open all of a plaintiffs past medical history to scrutiny." [emphasis in the original].) 25 Furthermore, to limit the subpoena to records of treatment for depression, anxiety or 26 emotional distress "caused only by CHP," is hopelessly impractical. As CHP asked in its moving 27 papers, what if Ms. Williams' records do not clearly state what Plaintiff claimed, in any given 28 therapy session, to be the "cause" of his anxiety, depression, or emotional distress? To the extent 3 ' "' • CHPt's Reply to Pltf's Opp. lo Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Form (34-2019-00265393) 1 she might have recorded the alleged cause of any given symptom, what if Ms. Williams' ,2 treatment notes were based on Plaintiff s subjective interpretation of events? What if her 3 treatment notes were based on Plaintiffs lay opinions on causation? What, if her records reflect 4 that Plaintiff was feeling suicidal because of his family situation? What if her records attribute 5 ongoing emotional distress to both CHP-caused events and non-CHP-caused events?, In any of 6 these situations, the records would be indisputably relevant to Plaintiffs emotional distress 7 damages claim. Therapists rarely list the cause of each symptom in every treatment note. Their 8 treatment notes commonly describe the symptoms and the therapy rendered without any 9 discussion of causation. 10 Even if Plaintiff attributed, during any given session with Ms. Williams, his depression 11 solely to CHP's misconduct, CHP still should be allowed to present evidence that Plaintiff was 12 going through non-work-related stressful situations during the same time period in order to 13 defend against Plaintiffs noneconomic damages claims. References to such non-work-related 14 stressors could very well be in Ms. Williams' records. CHP should not be blocked from 15 presenting those records to its experts or to the jury because that would be unfair. If only records, 16 of distress "by CHP" were presented, the jury might conclude CHP was the cause of all of 17 Plaintiffs depression or anxiety based on Plaintiffs self-serving statements to Ms. Williams. 18 CHP also should be permitted to question Plaintiff at further sessions of his deposition about 19 these entries in Ms. Williams' records in order to develop evidence to defend against Plaintiffs 20 noneconomic damages claims. 21 Accordingly, CHP respectfully requests that the court (1) order Plaintiff to sign the 22 applicable release to allow copying of Ms. Williams' treatment records from the period between 23 January 1, 2018 and the present, (2) clarify in its order that the scope of the subpoefia and of the 24 records to be produced should not be limited to records of treatment for emotional distress caused 25 by CHP, but, rather, to records of treatment during that time period for depression, anxiety or 26 emotional distress caused by any source, event, person or entity, and (3) order Ms. Williams to 27 /// 28 4 ' CHPt's Reply to Pltf's Opp. to Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Form (34-2019-00265393) comply with the subpoena concerning her treatment records as limited intimeand scope by the 2 court's order. Dated: November 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 3 ROB BONTA 4 Attorney General of California KRISTIN M. DAILY 5 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 6 . 7 8 " JAMES F. CURRAN Deputy Attorney General 9 Attorneys for Defendant California Highway Patrol .10 SA2019I06238 11 12 13 14 15 16 ,17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CHPt's Reply to Pltf's Opp. to Second MTC Signature on Kay Williams Authorization Forni (34-2019-00265393) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL Case Name: David Ridge v. CHP No.: 34-2019-00265393 1 declare: 1 am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the C^alifornia State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. 1 am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On November 22. 2022.1 served the attached DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO CHP'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail addressed as-follows: John P. Briscoe Kay Williams, MA, MFT Mayall Hudey P.C. E-mail Address: E-mail Address: pvheron(a),gmail.com |briscoe@mavallaw.com lrilev(g),mavallaw.com 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 22, 2022, at Sacramento, California. Christopher R. Irby 8/ Christopher R. Irby " Declarant Signature SA:0I91062.18 36732l99.docx