No Value: Watson vs Jumpsport, Inc.

On August 05, 2020 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Watson, Harriet, and Jumpsport, Inc., for 24: Unlimited Product Liability in the District Court of Sonoma County.

Preview
1 AMARO | BALDWIN LLP
Michael L. Amaro, Esq. (Bar No. 109514)
2 Sanaz Cherazaie, Esq. (Bar No. 273944)
400 Oceangate, Suite 1125
3 Long Beach, California 90802
Telephone: (562) 912-4157
4 Facsimile: (866) 611-6619
mamaro@amarolawyers.com
5 scherazaie@amarolawyers.com
6
Ralph R. Rhoades, Esq. (SBN 100127)
7 Norman La Force, Esq. (SBN 102772)
PARTON & SELL
8 A Professional Corporation
817 D Street San Rafael, CA 94901
9 Telephone: (415) 258-9700
Facsimile: (415) 258-9739
10
LLP

rrhoades@partonsell.com
nlaforce@partonsell.com
11
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 Attorneys for Defendant, JUMPSPORT, INC.
13

14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15 COUNTY OF SONOMA
16

17 HARRIET WATSON, CASE NO. SCV-266838
(Assigned to Judge Oscar A. Pardo- Dept. 19)
18 Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT, JUMPSPORT, INC.’S NOTICE
19 v. OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH
20 JUMPSPORT, INC.; and DOES 1- 20, SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF UN-
inclusive, REDACTED MEDICAL RECORDS, OR
21 ALTERNATIVELY, IN CAMERA REVIEW OF
Defendants. CLAIMED PRIVLEGES; MEMORANDUM OF
22 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L.
23 AMARO; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
24 [Filed Concurrently With California Rules of
Court Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement]
25
DATE: ___________
26 TIME: ___________
DEPT: 19
27
Complaint Filed: August 5, 2020
28 Trial: June 21, 2024

1
MOTION TO COMPEL
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on _____________, 2024, at _____a.m./p.m. or soon
3 thereafter as may be heard in the above caption court, Defendant JUMPSPORT, INC., ("Defendant")
4 will and hereby does move this Court for an Order compelling Plaintiff, HARRIET WATSON,
5 (“Plaintiff”), to comply with production of records pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section
6 2025.480, as to Defendant’s subpoena on Plaintiff's medical providers West County Community
7 Health, Brook Vezino, M.D., and Dr. Avinash Ramchandani. Production may be compelled on the
8 grounds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of proving any applicable privilege and/or any
9 privileges are outweighed by Defendant’s compelling need to conduct discovery regarding
10 Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, medical causation, and damages in this case.
LLP

11 Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff counsel received the document production from
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 the medical providers for a “first-look”, for determination of relevancy and privilege. The agreement
13 was reached after Plaintiff served blanket objections to the subpoenas for records.
14 After Plaintiff reviewed the production pursuant to the subpoenas served on non-party
15 medical providers, Plaintiff produced heavily redacted records and a privilege log. Defendant now
16 moves for compliance with the subpoena by production of non-redacted medical records, or
17 alternatively, for in-camera review for determination of applicability of claimed privileges. Code
18 Civ. Proc., § 2025.480. Following in-camera review, if this Court finds that no privilege applies,
19 and/or that production is otherwise warranted, Defendant requests that Plaintiff produce all non-
20 privileged medical records previously provided to Plaintiffs from non-parties pursuant to
21 Defendant’s subpoena, within five (5) days of the Court’s order thereon. Saddleback Cmty. Hosp.
22 v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 206, 209; Mavroudis v. Superior Court (1980) 102
23 Cal.App.3d 594, 606.
24 This motion is made on the grounds that good cause exists for production of complete
25 medical records, and that no applicable privilege applies, the privilege log provided by Plaintiff is
26 vague and does not provide sufficient information to determination applicability of the stated
27 privilege, and/or that any stated privilege is outweighed by the prejudice to Defendant if the
28 documents are not produced, pursuant Code of Civ. Procedure § 2025.480, Williams v. Superior

2
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 Court, (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, and related case law.
2 This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities
3 accompanied herein, the Declaration of Michael L. Amaro, Esq., the Exhibits attached thereto, the
4 Court file herein and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing
5 of the instant motion.
6

7 DATED: April 4, 2024 AMARO | BALDWIN LLP
8
By:______________________________
9
MICHAEL L. AMARO
10 Attorneys for Defendant,
LLP

JUMPSPORT, INC.
11
A MARO | B ALDWIN

3
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 On or about August 5, 2018, Plaintiff HARRIET WATSON (“Plaintiff”) received and set-up
4 the JumpSport 230F folding trampoline, and while using the same, she claims she suffered injury.
5 She filed a personal injury action, and during the course of the case alleged that she answered special
6 interrogatories served by Defendant, where Plaintiff listed her injury claims. Plaintiff described her
7 injury claims as follows:
8 1. Bruised and/or cracked ribs;
9 2. Difficulty breathing;
10
LLP

3. Inability to lift arms;
11 4. Right shoulder spasms;
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 5. Tardive Dyskinesia and/or dystonia;
13 6. Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (“CRPS”); and
14 7. General pain and suffering in connection with the above physical injuries.
15 Following the First Trial, Defendant served subpoena for the production of business records
16 on the following providers Brook Vezino, M.D., and Avinash Ramchandani, M.D. (See Exhibit
17 “A”, Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Brook Vezino, M.D.; Exhibit
18 “B”, Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Avinash Ramchandani, M.D.).
19 On January 9, 2024, the parties engaged in a telephonic meeting of counsel, whereby the
20 parties agreed to limit the scope of the requested records to January 1, 2023 to the present. The
21 parties further agreed that Plaintiff’s counsel would have the opportunity to review any production
22 by each provider before defense counsel, and if Plaintiff’s counsel has any objections, a detailed
23 privilege log will be prepared for each provider. The parties agreed that Plaintiff would give two
24 weeks to review the non-party’s production of records pursuant to subpoena, and provide the
25 privilege logs, and that each provider circulate an email to all counsel advising of the date of
26 production. The parties further agreed that Plaintiff’s counsel would send an email to each medical
27 provider, advising that the parties have reached an agreement and requesting that the records only be
28 produced to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. (See Exhibit “C”, Emails between Michael Amaro, Esq.

4
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 and Caitlin Phair, Esq., dated January 4, 2024).
2 On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Dr. Vezino and Dr. Ramchandani’s
3 respective office, advising that unredacted records pursuant to Defendant’s subpoenas for production
4 of business records should only be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel. (See Exhibit “D”, Email from
5 Caitlin Phair, Esq. to Dr. Vezino, dated January 9, 2024, and Exhibit “E”, Email from Caitlin Phair,
6 Esq. to Dr. Ramchandani, dated January 9, 2024).
7 On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff produced redacted records from Dr. Vezino and Dr.
8 Ramchandani, as well as a privilege log. (See Exhibit “F” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s
9 Privilege Log, served on February 5, 2024; Exhibit “G”, Redacted records produced by Plaintiff on
10 behalf of Dr. Vezino; Exhibit “H”, Redacted records produced by Plaintiff on behalf of Dr.
LLP

11 Ramchandani).
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 In an effort to meet and confer, Defense counsel sent Plaintiff counsel a meet and confer on
13 February 21, 2024, requesting an agreement on the heavily redacted records and privilege log, and a
14 further production of non-redacted records. (Dec. of Michael L. Amaro; and Defendant’s meet and
15 confer letter to Plaintiff attached as Exhibit “I”). However, Plaintiff counsel did not respond to the
16 meet and confer letter. Defense counsel then sent Plaintiff counsel an additional letter dated March
17 20, 2024, to further meet and confer on the issue, and a copy of the same is attached hereto as
18 Exhibit “J”.
19 Defendant has repeatedly contended that Plaintiff’s medical records should be produced in its
20 unredacted form, and has previously offered the Declaration of Steven Feinberg, M.D., in regard to
21 the relevancy of such records. (See Exhibit “K”, Declaration of Steven Feinberg, M.D. in Support
22 of Motion to Allow for Discovery of Plaintiff’s Mental Health Conditions and Treatment.).
23 Plaintiff’s medical records produced by Dr. Vezino and Dr. Ramchandani by Plaintiff are so heavily
24 redacted that it is impossible for Defendant to determine the applicability of Plaintiff’s stated
25 objections and privileges. Moreover, Plaintiff never responded to Defendant’s meet and confer
26 attempts for additional information or support concerning Plaintiff’s objections. Accordingly, the
27 instant motion is timely being filed.
28

5
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 II. THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO
2 PRODUCE UN-REDACTED RECORDS OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO
3 CONDUCT AN IN-CAMERA REVIEW REGARDING CLAIMED
4 PRIVILEGES AND THEREAFTER ORDER PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE
5 NON-PRIVILEGED AND/OR RELEVANT RECORDS
6 Where a nonparty deponent fails to provide satisfactory answers under a subpoena, the
7 subpoenaing party may move to compel compliance within 60 days of completion of the deposition
8 record. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480. Under a subpoena for records, the records and responses
9 produced serve as the deposition record for determining the 60-day time limit. Unzipped Apparel,
10
LLP

LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 131 (the 60-day limit for a motion to compel production
11 applies to a subpoena for business records, and begins to run when the objections are received,
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 which constitutes the record of the deposition under Code Civ. Proc., § 2025(b)).
13 Furthermore, where a party claims that records are privileged based on medical privacy, the
14 Court is permitted to require disclosure in camera in making its ruling regarding production.
15 Saddleback Cmty. Hosp. v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 206, 209; Mavroudis v. Superior
16 Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 594, 606.
17 In this case, Plaintiff requested review of the subpoenaed records, prior to production to the
18 Defendant. Pursuant to party agreement, Plaintiff received the records responsive to the agreement,
19 and thereafter produced certain records, as well as a privilege log. On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff
20 produced heavily redacted records in response to the subpoena to Avinash Ramchandani, M.D., and
21 Brook Vezino, M.D., via email. Pursuant to the 60-day time limit for service, Defendant’s deadline
22 to file any motion to compel compliance with subpoena is April 9, 2024. Accordingly, this motion
23 was timely filed.
24 III. IT IS PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT APPLICABLE
25 PRIVILEGES APPLY AND THAT ANY REDACTIONS OF RECORDS WAS
26 WARRANTED
27 Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged that is relevant to the
28 subject matter involved in the pending action. Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 201

6
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 (“discovery is not limited to admissible evidence.”) Discovery statutes “must be construed liberally
2 in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for
3 denial.” Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378. This means that
4 “disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”.
5 Id. at p. 378.
6 Here, good cause exists for production of complete medical records, on the grounds that no
7 applicable privilege applies, the privilege log provided by Plaintiff is vague and does not provide
8 sufficient information to determination applicability of the stated privilege, and/or that any stated
9 privilege is outweighed by the prejudice to Defendant if the documents are not produced.
10 Dr. Feinberg’s Declaration Sets Forth the Medical Grounds for the Production
LLP

A.
11 of Unredacted Medical Records
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 1. Dr. Feinberg’s Background as a medical pain doctor
13 Dr. Feinberg is a physiatrist and pain medicine specialist practicing in Palo Alto. He is also
14 an Adjunct Clinical Professor and teaches at Stanford University Pain Service. He has served as
15 past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM). Additionally, he is a senior
16 author of the 2021 ACPA-Stanford Resource Guide to Chronic Pain Management and serves on
17 the AMA Guides Newsletter Advisory Board, the AMA Guides Editorial Panel. He is also a
18 member of the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force and is the Panel Chair of the
19
ACOEM Chronic pain Guideline. (See Exhibit “K”, Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 1.)
20 a. In Chronic Pain, Patients’ Psychological Factors Are Closely
21 Related to Physical Pain
22 In his declaration Dr. Feinberg states that chronic pain (duration of ≥3 months) can be the
23 result of an underlying medical disease or condition, injury, medical treatment, inflammation, or an
24 unknown cause. In chronic pain, physical and psychological factors typically are both present and
25 overlap. Chronic pain is rarely purely physical or only psychological. Chronic pain disrupts the
26 nervous system as well as the immune, endocrine, and inflammatory systems. There is a strong
27 relationship between pain and emotions. Research has confirmed that the severity of depression,
28 anxiety, and anger are some of the most critical factors in determining chronic pain patients with

7
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1
the greatest suffering and dysfunction. (Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 4.)
2 He further states that the experience of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) (which
3 are reported in Watson’s medical records) such as major illness or injury as a child, abandonment
4 and neglect by parents, or emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, has been strongly linked to
5 development of chronic pain and other chronic illnesses. It is often the cumulative effect of
6 multiple ACEs that may put an individual at risk for delayed recovery and development of a
7
prolonged, chronic pain syndrome. (Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 6.)
8 b. Watson’s Complex Medical History Is Factually Important for
9 Understanding Her Claims Regarding Pain and CRPS
10
LLP

As a physiatrist and chronic pain specialist and as an expert witness in this case, Dr.
11 Feinberg states that he was extremely limited in medical records review regarding Watson’s
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 psychiatric history and treatment and in his ability to testify to redacted records and the inability to
13 address a rather major history of psychiatric comorbidity and frankly unusual and complex chronic
14
pain syndrome going back to Watson’s childhood. (Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 7.)
15 He states that Watson has a history of adverse childhood experiences and a long history of
16 chronic pain with multiple medical and psychiatric comorbidities/diagnoses and treatment over
17 many years. She was unemployed at the time of the injury (and had been for quite some time) and
18
was on disability for both medical and psychiatric causes. (Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 8.)
19 Watson’s psychiatric comorbidities include a history of anxiety, depression, panic attacks,
20 nightmares, and PTSD. Her psychiatric problems were noted to have started as a child with
21 suicidal ideation starting as a teenager. Dr. Feinberg states that we frankly do not know the extent
22 of Watson’s psychiatric comorbidity given that the records were highly redacted. (Feinberg
23
Declaration ⁋ 9.)
24 He further notes that medical comorbidities and diagnoses for Watson have been provided
25 over the years including a history of insomnia, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, mold and
26 chemical sensitivity, chronic Lyme disease, peripheral neuropathy, adrenal insufficiency, GERD,
27 tremors, obstructive sleep apnea, temporomandibular joint disorder, syndrome of inappropriate
28 secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH), and chronic pain. She was on opioid/narcotic

8
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 medications as far back as 2013. She has had various musculoskeletal discomforts over many
2 years. There have been episodes of her being bedridden.1 She has described brain fog, relapsing
3 fatigue and confusion in the past. She has undergone extensive treatment and therapy. She self-
4 described developing a neuropathy in her upper and lower extremities with a burning sensation in
5 mid-2014. She also describes decreased balance. She has undergone care with multiple
6 practitioners. She was described in March 2015 as having periodic limb movements with very mild
7 sleep obstructive apnea.
8 On 3/25/2015 Dr. Ackroyd noted that her limb movements were excessive in nature. When
9 seen by a family nurse practitioner on 4/15/2016, she presented for acupuncture with a history of
10
LLP

chronic pain throughout her body for 30 years. Her dizziness was slightly worse in early October
11 2016. When seen on 12/6/2016 (1 ½ years prior to the incident) at Redwood Valley Clinic, the
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 diagnoses included Lyme, chemical sensitivity, hypothyroid, fatigue, PTSD, anxiety, neuropathy,
13 fibromyalgia, hypothyroidism, restless leg syndrome, sleep disorder, and dystonia2 (emphasis
14 added). On 4/12/2017, under symptom checklist it was noted poor balance, dizziness,
15 lightheadedness, wooziness, cognitive dysfunction and poor sleep. As of 5/9/2018 when seen at the
16 Redwood Valley Clinic, the assessment was Lyme, chemical sensitivity, fatigue. She described
17 worsened sweats, chills, flushing, fatigue, tiredness, poor stamina, shortness of breath, neck/back
18 stiffness, neck cracks, neck pain, joint stiffness, joint swelling, joint pain much worse, diarrhea
19 much worse, and headache much worse. One month before the trampoline incident, when seen at
20
the clinic on 7/10/2018, chronic pain was noted. (Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 10.)
21 Dr. Feinberg previously summarized the incident of 8/6/2018 and noted that the medical
22 records clearly supported that the only injury from the subject trampoline accident was to her right
23 anterior lower rib cage, to which she had suffered a contusion/bruising injury. This body part has
24 no neurological or musculoskeletal connection with the neck, right shoulder, upper back or right
25
1
26 As the Court will recall, one of Plaintiff’s treating doctors, Brooke Vezino, M.D. testified at trial
(during cross-examination) that Plaintiff spent 10 years in bed due to her chronic pain issues and
27 related mental health challenges associated therewith. (See pages 259 – 260 of the transcript).
2
28 Dystonia is a neurological movement disorder characterized by involuntary (unintended) muscle
contractions that cause slow repetitive movements or abnormal postures that can sometimes be
painful.
9
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1
upper extremity. (Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 11.)
2 c. Dr. Feinberg Found That Watson’s Medical Records Showed
3 Anxiety/Panic Attacks Just Prior to Her Accident That Are
4 Relevant to the Issue of How Her Accident Occurred, Including
5 Dizziness and Loss of Balance
6 Dr. Feinberg noted that more importantly, two days post the trampoline incident, and as
7 documented by Dr. Vezino on 8/8/2018, supra, Watson had been having anxiety/panic nonstop
8 attacks over the past 2 weeks, and while we do not have the actual records, she had spoken with the
9 mental health practitioner (psychiatrist Dr. Steven Starr), and there have been psychotropic
10 medication changes. Dr. Feinberg has opined that Watson’s multiple psychotropic medications
LLP

11 alone could be responsible for a variety of issues surrounding balance and dizziness. (Feinberg
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12
Declaration ⁋ 12.) This is an area that Defendant is certainly entitled to explore prior to trial.
13 d. None of Watson’s Doctors Provided Documentation to Support a
14 Diagnosis of CRPS
15 Dr. Feinberg also documented through his examination that not one of Watson’s physicians
16 has provided a physical examination that supports the diagnosis of complex regional pain
17 syndrome (CRPS) and that while he noted some interesting findings supportive of the diagnosis of
18 neuropathic pain, he also noted that having symptoms only in her arm and outer wrist and hand
19 were not part and parcel of any type of CRPS type syndrome. In short, Plaintiff did not meet the
20
criteria for this diagnosis in any case. (Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 13.)
21 e. Watson’s Own Psychiatrist Noted That Watson Herself Said It Is
22 Difficult to Differentiate Between Her Physical Symptoms and
23 Her Psychiatric Symptoms
24 Dr. Feinberg refers to the 8/21/2018 psychiatric report of Dr. Tess Lusher, supra, that
25 Watson’s history of psychiatric treatment since a young child was noted along with her ongoing
26 psychiatric symptoms. She had been treated with multiple psychiatric medications and at many
27 clinics. She stated that she was unable to differentiate between her physical symptoms from her
28 psychiatric symptoms. She had undergone a number of psychiatric hospitalizations. Dr. Lusher

10
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1
provided diagnoses of anxiety disorder and personality disorder3.(Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 14.)
2 f. Dr. Feinberg Would Need to Rely Upon Watson’s Psychiatric
3 Medical Records to Give a Complete Opinion and for Him to
4 Explain Fully Why Watson Does Not Have CRPS
5 Dr. Feinberg further states that when someone presents with this type of history, you cannot
6 subtract out the psychiatric history, provide redacted records, limit testimony by the physician pain
7 specialist, and expect that specialist to be able to explain fully to the judge the reasons why
8 someone like Ms. Watson presents the way she does because it is clear that her overall presentation
9 is severely colored by her past mental health condition and psychiatric history. (Feinberg
10
Declaration ⁋ 15.) For Dr. Feinberg to express his medical opinion based on all the facts, he would
LLP

11 need to be able to access and rely upon Watson’s psychiatric/psychological conditions and to
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 explain why in his medical opinion she did not develop and does not have CRPS. (Feinberg
13
Declaration ⁋ 16.)
14 g. Dr. Feinberg Also Needs to Rely on Watson’s Psychiatric
15 Records to Challenge Watson’s Doctor’s Recommendation That
16 She Receive Ketamine Infusion Therapy; Indeed, in His Opinion
17 Ketamine Infusion Therapy Would Not Be Recommended for a
18 Patient With Watson’s Psychiatric Illnesses
19 Furthermore, Dr. Feinberg states that he would need to rely upon her psychiatric records to
20 be able to challenge the recommendation from Watson’s treating doctors that she undergo
21 ketamine infusion therapy. In Dr. Feinberg’s opinion, due to her psychiatric condition, she is not
22 and would not be an appropriate candidate for ketamine therapy. Given her psychiatric conditions,
23 Dr. Feinberg does not believe she is a candidate for ketamine therapy. In any case, in his opinion,
24 because Watson has pre-existing psychiatric conditions, she would first need to be evaluated as to
25 whether she would be a suitable candidate for such a therapy. But Dr. Feinberg could not testify
26
3
27 A personality disorder is a mental health condition where people have a lifelong pattern of seeing
themselves and reacting to others in ways that cause problems. People with personality
28 disorders often have a hard time understanding emotions and tolerating distress. And they act
impulsively. This makes it hard for them to relate to others, causing serious issues, and affecting
their family life, social activities, work and school performance, and overall quality of life.
11
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 as to this fact due to the evidentiary restrictions based on his use of Watson’s psychiatric records.
2
(Feinberg Declaration ⁋ 17.)
3 B. Watson’s Privacy Rights Are Not Absolute, And The Court Can Order
4 Discovery of Purportedly Privileged Records That Are Relevant After
5 Balancing the Need for The Information, If Alternatives Are Available, And
6 Any Protective Measures That May be Appropriate
7 In Williams v. Superior Court, (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 559 Supreme Court of California
8 reversed and remanded the action holding the party seeking discovery of private information need
9 not always establish a compelling interest or compelling need without regard to other
10
LLP

considerations including the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion,
11 and the availability of alternatives and protective measures. The Court reiterated the framework for
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a
13 legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given
14 circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise
15 in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests which disclosure serves,
16 while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or
17 protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these
18 competing considerations. Id at p. 557. In regard to psychiatric/psychological records, Watson’s
19 privacy rights are not absolute. In Re Lifeschutz, (1970) 2 Cal.3rd 415, 439. The court is required to
20 engage in a careful balancing of the need for disclosure against the fundamental right of privacy to
21 determine if there are no other less intrusive means of accomplishing the same result. Akkerman v.
22 Mecta Corp., Inc., (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104.
23 In the case at bar, JumpSport has demonstrated that discovery of Watson’s
24 psychiatric/psychological records are relevant and that there is a need for discovery of those
25 records. The psychiatric records establish a legitimate need for the unredacted records. One of the
26 major factual issues in this case is how Watson’s trampoline accident occurred. Her panic attacks
27 and her admission that in one case the attack caused her to faint and fall down with a concussion is
28 highly relevant information. The evidence shows that she was having constant panic attacks in the

12
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 two weeks before the accident and that those panic attacks continued after the accident. That
2 evidence coupled with the evidence that the medications she was taking at the time for her
3 psychiatric conditions cause dizziness, loss of balance, lack of coordination and brain fog is also
4 highly relevant. In addition, Dr. Feinberg’s declaration establishes that in a case like Watson’s
5 where there are underlying psychiatric conditions a full and complete diagnosis of her injury and of
6 the appropriate therapy for that injury, if it actually occurred, is highly relevant and the jury should
7 be allowed to hear and consider that evidence.
8 Redaction of the relevant evidence is not a reasonable or feasible alternative. An alternative
9 that is feasible is for the parties to enter into the same confidential stipulation that JumpSport had
10 Watson sign and agree to regarding JumpSport’s confidential business records. Thus, while the
LLP

11 records could be used at trial and could be the basis for testimony, they had to be returned at the
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 conclusion of the case, and any witness who relied on them would have to return their copy or
13 certify its destruction. Nor could records remain in the court file, if they were filed with the court.
14 C. Any Objection Based on the Court’s Motion in Limine Order #1 Should Be
15 Overruled, or Alternatively, the Court may Set Aside its Orer on Motion in
16 Limine #1 for the Purpose of Discovery
17 The California Supreme Court has held that a ruling on a motion in limine is generally not
18 binding on the trial court, and the trial court may reconsider its ruling at any time the challenged
19 evidence is offered. People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 634, fn. 16, citing People v. Campa
20 (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 885-886 [“[an] order suppressing evidence . . . is the equivalent of an order
21 sustaining an objection to the same evidence, and is subject to the same procedural rules.
22 These rules allow the trial court to reconsider, modify or set aside its order at any time prior to
23 submission of the cause (Code Civ.Proc. § 128, subd.8)”]; People v. Superior Court (Zolnay) 15
24 Cal.3d 729, 734; Saidi-Tabatabai v. Superior Court (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 257, 266; see also
25 Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 30, 41-42 [rulings on motions in limine are not binding on the
26 Court, and the Court may amend, renew, or reconsider such rulings in response to developments at
27 trial]. Additionally, a trial court has the discretion to revisit its interim orders, when it is in the
28 interest of justice. Loeb v. County of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 421, 430 (trial courts always

13
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 have discretion to revisit interim orders in service of the paramount goal of fair and accurate decision
2 making. If a court believes on of its prior interim orders was erroneous, it should be able to correct
3 the error not matter how it came to acquire that belief).
4 There is no case law that supports any position that may be offered by the Plaintiff that the
5 Court may not change its rulings on a motion in limine. As a practical matter, during a long trial,
6 courts often amend, renew, and reconsider rulings on motions limine, based on the evidence
7 presented at trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument by Plaintiff that this Court may not consider
8 any prior evidentiary rulings is misguided and should be rejected.
9 IV. CONCLUSION
10
LLP

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court order Plaintiff to
11 comply with production of records pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2025.480, as to
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 Defendant’s subpoena on Plaintiff's medical providers West County Community Health, Brook
13 Vezino, M.D., and Dr. Avinash Ramchandani, and to produce un-redacted records. Production
14 may be compelled on the grounds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of proving any applicable
15 privilege and/or any privileges are outweighed by Defendant’s compelling need to conduct discovery
16 regarding Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, medical causation, and damages in this case.
17 Alternatively, for in-camera review for determination of applicability of claimed privileges.
18 Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480. Following in-camera review, if this Court finds that no privilege
19 applies, and/or that production is otherwise warranted, Defendant requests that Plaintiff produce all
20 non-privileged medical records previously provided to Plaintiffs from non-parties pursuant to
21 Defendant’s subpoena, within five (5) days of the Court’s order thereon.
22

23 DATED: April 4, 2024 AMARO | BALDWIN LLP
24
By____________________________
25
MICHAEL L. AMARO
26 Attorneys for Defendant,
JUMPSPORT, INC.
27

14
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. AMARO
2 I, MICHAEL L. AMARO, declare:
3 I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice law in all the courts of the State of California and
4 am a partner of the law firm of Amaro Baldwin LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant,
5 JUMPSPORT, INC (“Defendant”). As such, I have personal knowledge of the files and pleadings in
6 this matter, as well as the facts stated below. If called upon as a witness, I could and would
7 competently testify as follows:
8 1. In an effort to evaluate Plaintiff's continuing damages claims, current injuries and
9 future medical treatment that is reasonably necessary, Defendant served subpoena for the production
10
LLP

of business records on the following providers Brook Vezino, M.D., and Avinash Ramchandani,
11 M.D.
A MARO | B ALDWIN

12 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is a true and correct copy of the Deposition
13 Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Brook Vezino, M.D., served by Defendant in this
14 action.
15 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, is a true and correct copy of the Deposition
16 Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Avinash Ramchandani, M.D., served by Defendant
17 in this action.
18 4. On January 9, 2024, the parties engaged in a telephonic meeting of counsel, whereby
19 the parties agreed to limit the scope of the requested records to January 1, 2023, to the present. The
20 parties further agreed that Plaintiff’s counsel would have the opportunity to review any production
21 by each provider before defense counsel, and if Plaintiff’s counsel has any objections, a detailed
22 privilege log will be prepared for each provider. The parties agreed that Plaintiff would give two
23 weeks to review the non-party’s production of records pursuant to subpoena, and provide the
24 privilege logs, and that each provider circulate an email to all counsel advising of the date of
25 production. The parties further agreed that Plaintiff’s counsel would send an email to each medical
26 provider, advising that the parties have reached an agreement and requesting that the records only be
27 produced to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Following the telephonic meeting of counsel, I sent a
28 confirming email.

15
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of the emails between
2 Michael Amaro, Esq. and Caitlin Phair, Esq., dated January 4, 2024).
3 6. On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Dr. Vezino and Dr.
4 Ramchandani’s respective office, advising t

Case Info

Judge

Pardo, Oscar A Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 05, 2024

Case Filing Date

August 05, 2020

County

Parties

Jumpsport, Inc. Defendant
O'Brien, Patrick Kevin Attorney for the Plaintiff
Rhoades, Ralph Robert Attorney for the Defendant
Watson, Harriet Plaintiff
Michael Amaro Attorney
Sanaz Cherazaie Attorney
Caitlin Phair Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Steven Pabros Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Patricia Wolfe Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Norman LaForce Attorney
Terri Turner Attorney
Austin Klein Attorney
Bradly Makorow Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: Watson vs Jumpsport, Inc.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties