AVIANNA MORENO and ANDREA CANTU, Plaintiffs, v. YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, JOHN R. IRION, in his individual capacity, CECILIA MAHRE, in her individual capacity, ROBERT STANLEY, in his individual capacity, Defendants. NO. 1:20-CV-3002-TOR United States District Court, E.D. Washington Filed October 05, 2021 Rice, Thomas O., United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL RECORDS *1 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Medical Records (ECF No. 46). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, the completed briefing, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Medical Records (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED. BACKGROUND This case arises from the alleged bullying of a student attending the Yakima School District. ECF No. 1. On January 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants. Id. The complaint raised, inter alia, actions for negligent infliction of emotional distress and outrage. Id. On September 8, 2021, Defendants filed the present motion to compel Plaintiffs’ medical records. ECF No. 46. Plaintiffs were required to file a response memorandum within 14 days. LCivR 7(c)(2)(B). Plaintiffs did not file any response. Defendants subsequently filed a reply. ECF No. 48. DISCUSSION A. Motion to Compel Standard Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party has a duty to cooperate and comply with the discovery process. Under Rule 37, a party may move the Court for an order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The motion must include certification that the moving party “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer” with opposing counsel in an effort to obtain discovery without court action. Id. The Court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Since January 26, 2021, Defendants repeatedly conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel in an attempt to obtain the requested stipulations and authorizations for the release of medical records. ECF No. 46 at 2-7. Defendants also requested records from the medical providers; Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital, Apple Valley, Robert M. Newell, PhD, and Tawnya L. Wright, MEd, LHMC refused to release the records without Plaintiffs’ consent. Id. at 3, 7. To date, Defendants have not received the requested documents from Plaintiffs or these providers. Id. at 7. B. Production of Medical Records Generally, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). It must also be remembered that these rules “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Under Rule 34, a party may serve another party with a request to produce documents or electronically stored information that are in the party's “possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The burden of establishing possession, custody, or control is on the party seeking production. United States v. Int'l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989). “[F]ederal courts have consistently held that documents are deemed to be within [a party's] ‘possession, custody or control’ for purposes of Rule 34 if the party has actual possession, custody, or control, or has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand.” Duran v. Cisco Sys., 258 F.R.D. 375, 379 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing United States v. Int'l Union of Petroleum and Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citation omitted)). *2 Here, the Court finds the circumstances warrant compelling Plaintiffs to sign the stipulations and authorizations for the release of their medical records. Plaintiffs’ failure to file a response pursuant to LCivR 7(c) is deemed consent to the entry of this Order. LCivR 7(e). Moreover, the discovery sought is relevant to Plaintiffs’ negligent, intentional, and/or reckless emotional distress claims under Rule 26(a). ECF No. 1 at 39-41. Courts have found medical records within the control of Plaintiffs who have the ability to sign authorizations for release of records that are in the possession of treatment providers. See Nuskey v. Lambright, 251 F.R.D. 3, 8 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Courts regularly order plaintiffs to sign authorizations for the release of medical information from health care providers where ... those records are relevant to the plaintiff's claims.”). The Stipulated Protective Order adequately protects Plaintiffs’ privacy interests in the medical records. ECF No. 37. C. Request for Attorney's Fees Under Rule 37, if a court grants a motion to compel, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The requested fees must not be granted if “the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. Defendants requested attorney's fees in the motion to compel. ECF No. 46 at 11. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to be heard on Defendants’ request in a response to Defendants’ motion. See Paladin Assocs., Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs did not file a response. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that their failure to provide authorizations was substantially justified and there is no other evidence that makes an award of expenses unjust. Therefore, the Court will award reasonable attorney's fees that are associated with bringing the motion to compel. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Medical Records (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs shall produce the signed stipulations and signed authorizations to Defendants within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. 3. Defendants are instructed to submit a substantiation of fees within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. The timing of a response and reply are governed by LCivR 7. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel.