BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC. ET AL VS. NKECHI EMERUWA ET AL

Matter on the LAW AND MOTION / DISCOVERY CALENDAR FOR THURSDAY, JUL-31-2025, LINE 1. PLAINTIFF BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC.'s Motion To Compel Ulrich Berg M.D.'S Deposition And Production Of Documents Pursuant To Subpoena. ***PART ONE OF TWO***

Plaintiff/Defendant Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.'s Motion To Compel Ulrich Berg M.D.'s Deposition And Production Of Documents is DENIED.

Budget seeks records from and a deposition of Dr. Berg, a mental health professional who has treated Defendant/Plaintiff Emeruwa. There is no question that individuals have strong privacy interest in their medical records and patient and physician/therapist communications are privileged. Nor is there any question that the relevant privacy interests and privileges are not absolute. (See, e.g., Evidence Code section 1016(a).)

In civil litigation, the question whether a mental health treatment provider must provide evidence is a question of balancing. Here, the precise rules governing the balancing are not material because the balance clearly tips against compelled disclosure. The court finds Budget has not shown its request are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See CCP Section 2017.010.)

Emeruwa has withdrawn her claim to emotional/mental health damages beyond garden variety emotional distress. She has disclaimed any presentation of evidence of a mental health diagnosis and disclaimed reliance on evidence from Dr. Berg. Thus, Emeruwa's general mental health/mental state has been removed from being an issue in this litigation. (See Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1881.) It follows that Budget's discovery requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The timing of Emeruwa's withdrawals and disclaimers is neither surprising (this often happens when discovery demands are pressed) nor particularly apt to this motion (there's no rule against withdrawals and disclaimers at this point in litigation). In light of the withdrawals and disclaimers, any marginal relevance is outweighed by the privacy interests and the privileges.

The court notes that in its moving papers Budget said nothing about Emeruwa's withdrawals and disclaimers, which occurred before Budget filed its motion. Budget's failure to address these facts, which are clearly relevant to the issues Budget had submitted to the court for resolution, is troubling.

At the same time, troubling is Emeruwa's failure to meet and confer with Budget in advance of the deposition/production date and in advance of the motion to compel. The parties should have been able to work this out, enter a stipulation and move on. ***END OF PART ONE OF TWO***=(302/JMQ) | |