Sculls et al. v. Lowe et al.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Sign Authorizations Re: Written Release of their Psychological Records; Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to sign authorizations for the release of their psychological records. Defendant has not cited any authority that gives the Court discretion to require Plaintiffs to sign authorizations for the release of their psychological records. The Court cannot create new methods of discovery that are not set forth in the Discovery Act. The Court’s powers are limited by the express language of the Act.
In Holm v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1241, the court refused to order a body exhumed for purposes of autopsy finding no legal authority in the statutory discovery scheme to so order “in the absence of express statutory language ... .” Holm at 1248-1249.
The Holm court held that “in the area of civil discovery, the judiciary has no power to create or sanction types
Hearing Date
March 02, 2020
Type
Premises Liability (e.g.slip & fall) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Sculls et al. v. Lowe et al.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Sign Authorizations Re: Written Release of their Psychological Records; Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to sign authorizations for the release of their psychological records. Defendant has not cited any authority that gives the Court discretion to require Plaintiffs to sign authorizations for the release of their psychological records. The Court cannot create new methods of discovery that are not set forth in the Discovery Act. The Court’s powers are limited by the express language of the Act.
In Holm v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1241, the court refused to order a body exhumed for purposes of autopsy finding no legal authority in the statutory discovery scheme to so order “in the absence of express statutory language ... .” Holm at 1248-1249.
The Holm court held that “in the area of civil discovery, the judiciary has no power to create or sanction types