Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Jeremy Smith filed suit in San Joaquin County Superior Court asserting state-law claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, including disability discrimination, harassment, hostile workplace environment, retaliation, wrongful termination, age discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. Defendant Lathrom Logistics, LLP removed the action to the Eastern District of California on April 24, 2026, based on diversity jurisdiction. Defendant subsequently served four subpoenas duces tecum on non-party Kaiser Permanente seeking plaintiff's medical records, mental health treatment records, pharmacy records, and billing records from January 1, 2016, to the present. Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoenas on October 2, 2026, arguing they were overbroad in temporal scope because his freezer-restriction disability was diagnosed in 2021 and the alleged harassment, injury, and termination occurred in 2025. He also asserted work-product protection for communications between his attorneys and Kaiser and proposed a compromise production limited to records from January 2021 forward.
The parties filed a joint statement on the discovery dispute on October 14, 2026. The court found the motions suitable for decision without oral argument under Local Rule 230(g) and vacated the hearing set for October 28, 2026. Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney issued the order on October 23, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motions to quash in full. First, it held that under the general rule a party has no standing to quash a subpoena served on a third party except to assert privilege, citing California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. and Wheat v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. Even if standing existed, the subpoenas were not overbroad: records from January 1, 2016 (approximately six months before plaintiff's employment) to the present are relevant because plaintiff alleges ongoing emotional distress and a disability during employment, and evidence of his prior emotional state may bear on alternate causes. Second, the court found plaintiff waived any privacy rights in the subpoenaed records by placing his physical and mental conditions directly at issue in seeking damages for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and harassment. The court cited Wheat and Hooks v. Target Corp. for the proposition that medical and mental health records are discoverable when a plaintiff puts those conditions in controversy, and that defendant's need outweighs plaintiff's privacy interests. Third, the court overruled plaintiff's work-product objection because he failed to identify any specific communications between his attorneys and Kaiser that would constitute protected work product, did not assert a joint legal interest or common-interest doctrine with Kaiser, and offered only a speculative claim that "any substantive communications from counsel" may reflect mental impressions.
The court encouraged the parties to promptly submit a stipulated protective order under Local Rule 141.1, noting defendant stated plaintiff had declined a prior proposal during the meet-and-confer process.
Key Takeaways
- A party generally lacks standing to challenge a third-party subpoena on grounds of relevance or overbreadth; only privilege objections are permitted.
- By asserting claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and emotional distress, a plaintiff waives privacy rights in medical and mental health records relevant to those conditions.
- Temporal scope of a medical-records subpoena may extend before the diagnosed disability date when the plaintiff alleges ongoing emotional distress and the records may reveal alternate causes.
- Work-product protection for communications with a non-party medical provider requires a specific showing of a common legal interest; speculative assertions are insufficient.
- Courts expect parties to stipulate to protective orders governing sensitive medical records rather than using privilege objections to block production entirely.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the narrow scope of a party's standing to challenge third-party subpoenas in the Eastern District of California, limiting objections to privilege and rejecting relevance and overbreadth challenges by the party. It clarifies that plaintiffs in employment-discrimination cases who allege both physical disability and emotional distress waive privacy protections for a broad range of medical and mental health records, including those predating the diagnosed condition. The decision also underscores that work-product claims over communications with treating providers require concrete evidence of a joint legal interest, not mere speculation. Practitioners should anticipate broad discovery of medical histories when emotional distress damages are sought and should proactively negotiate protective orders to manage confidentiality.