Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02340/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02340-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

12cv2340-GPC-DHB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEHAN ZEB MIR, M.D., Civil No. 12cv2340-GPC (DHB) 

 Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO 

COMPEL DEFENDANT 

KIRCHMEYER TO PRODUCE 

DOCUMENTS 

[ECF No. 148] 

v. 

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, 

et al., 

 

 Defendants.

 On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D. (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte

motion requesting the Court compel Defendant Kimberly Kirchmeyer (“Kirchmeyer”) to 

produce documents. (ECF No. 148.) On June 21, 2016, the Court issued an order denying 

in part, and reserving in part, Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 169.) Specifically, the Court 

reserved ruling on whether Kirchmeyer should be compelled to produce additional 

documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 6, and 10. (Id. at 4-6.) 

Kirchmeyer had objected to producing certain documents on grounds that they were 

protected by the deliberative process privilege. The Court noted that Kirchmeyer had not 

provided a privilege log or declaration substantiating her claim of privilege. (Id. at 6.) 

Therefore, the Court directed Kirchmeyer to either submit a privilege log and declaration, 

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 177 Filed 07/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

12cv2340-GPC-DHB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

or produce the withheld documents to Plaintiff. (Id. at 7.) 

On June 29, 2016, Kirchmeyer filed a declaration and privilege log. (ECF No. 176.) 

The privilege log shows that Kirchmeyer withheld the following documents: (1) Division 

of Medical Quality Consolidated Panel Meeting – Closed Session Minutes of Consolidated 

Panel dated November 2, 2016; (2) Medical Board of California Panel B Meeting – Closed 

Session Minutes of Panel B dated April 24, 2008; and (3) Medical Board of California 

Quarterly Meeting Panel B Meeting – Closed Session Minutes of Panel B dated July 29, 

2010 (collectively “Closed Session Minutes” or “Minutes”). (ECF No. 1767-1.) In her 

declaration, Kirchmeyer, who is the Executive Director for the Medical Board of 

California, explains why Defendants believe the Closed Session Minutes fall within the 

scope of the deliberative process privilege. She also describes the type of internal decision 

making information reflected in the Minutes. (ECF No. 176 at ¶¶1, 7-9.) The Court finds 

the declaration and privilege log are sufficient to enable to the Court to analyze the 

applicability of the privilege. 

The deliberative process privilege permits governmental agencies to withhold 

documents that “reflect[] advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations 

comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are 

formulated.” Hongsermeier v. C.I.R., 621 F.3d 890, 904 (9th Cir. 2010) quoting NLRB v. 

Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975). The purpose of the privilege is to 

“promote frank and independent discussion among those responsible for making 

governmental decisions,” and ultimately to “protect the quality of agency decisions.” 

F.T.C. v. Warner Communications, Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1994). In order to 

be protected by the privilege, a document must be both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” 

Id. A document is “predecisional” if it was “prepared in order to assist an agency decision 

maker in arriving at his decision.” Hongsermeier, 621 F.3d at 904. A document is 

“deliberative” if its disclosure would “expose an agency’s decision making process in such 

a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the 

agency’s ability to perform its functions.” Id. 

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 177 Filed 07/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

12cv2340-GPC-DHB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege. Warner Communications, 

742 F.2d at 1161. A party may obtain materials protected by the privilege if the need for 

the information overrides the government’s interest in non-disclosure. Id. The following 

factors are considered in deciding whether to override the privilege: “1) the relevance of 

the evidence; 2) the availability of other evidence; 3) the government’s role in the litigation; 

and 4) the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion 

regarding contemplated policies and decisions.” Id.

Here, Kirchmeyer explains that each of the Closed Session Minutes were prepared 

prior to the Board’s adoption of the administrative disciplinary decisions relating to 

Plaintiff. (ECF No. 176 at ¶7.) Specifically, the Board met in closed session on November 

2, 2006, and its disciplinary decision was not adopted until December 6, 2006. (Id.) 

Likewise, the Board met in closed session on April 24, 2008, and adopted its disciplinary 

decision on June 13, 2008, and met again in closed session on July 29, 2010, and adopted 

its disciplinary decision on September 27, 2010. (Id.) Therefore, the Court finds the 

Closed Session Minutes are predecisional. 

Kirchmeyer further explains that the Minutes memorialized the Board members’ 

voting actions including the motions that were made, the motions that were seconded, and 

voting outcomes. Kirchmeyer states that the Minutes also contain recommendations and 

suggestions that pertained to the terms of the disciplinary action. The Court finds 

disclosure of Closed Session Minutes would reveal the Board’s decision making process 

and could discourage candid debate by the Board in making disciplinary decisions. 

Therefore, the Court finds the Closed Session Minutes are deliberative. 

In addition, the Court determines, based on the allegations in the Complaint, that 

Plaintiff’s need for the Closed Session Minutes does not outweigh the Board’s interest in 

non-disclosure. The only claim remaining in this action is Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for 

prospective relief against Defendants Kirchmeyer and Levine in their official capacities. 

(ECF No. 159.) Plaintiff has the complete State administrative record, including transcripts 

and exhibits from the state administrative hearings and the Board’s written decisions. (See

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 177 Filed 07/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

12cv2340-GPC-DHB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ECF No. 29.) Further, the Court finds it likely that scrutiny of the Closed Session Minutes 

could chill frank and open discussion by Board members during closed session 

deliberations, and could negatively impact voting decisions or practices. 

Accordingly, Kirchmeyer’s assertion of the deliberative process privilege with 

regard to the Closed Session Minutes is SUSTAINED. The Court will not compel 

Kirchmeyer to produce any further documents to Plaintiff in response to Request for 

Production Nos. 2, 6, and 10. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 1, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 DAVID H. BARTICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 177 Filed 07/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4