Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04470/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04470-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Defendant filed her motion on June 3, 2005. However, the motion was submitted as “REDACTION

to Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Enforce Subpoena” [Docket 21]. Plaintiffs filed their opposition

on June 3, 2005 [Docket #20].

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL KEEGAN and BETH KEEGAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IRENE S. KIVITZ,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04470 SI

ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OFMEDICAL

RECORDS

By letter briefs,1 the parties have brought to the Court a dispute regarding the production of plaintiffs’

children’s medical records. Defendant contends that the medical records should be produced because they

are relevant to its defense and plaintiffs have provided testimony relating to their children’s medical treatment.

Plaintiffs contend that the evidence is irrelevant, given that they do not bring a personal injury action on behalf

of their children, and that the information is privileged.

Plaintiffs assert that the medical records are privileged under California Evidence Code § 994. The

causes of action in this case are state claims, with the exception of the Fifteenth Cause of Action under 42

U.S.C. § 4852d. That claim involves the notification requirements for the presence of lead-based paint, which

is notrelevantto the medicalrecords. Therefore, the Court will apply state law under Federal Rule of Evidence

501.

California Evidence Code § 994 provides that “the patient, whether or not a party, has a privilege to

refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication between a patient and

Case 3:04-cv-04470-SI Document 32 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

physician.” However, “there is no privilege . . . ifsuch issue has been tendered by: . . . (2) any party claiming

through or under the patient.” Cal. Evid. Code § 996. 

The Court recognizes the privacy interests in medical records. However, plaintiffs may not provide

testimony related to medical advice they received from doctors treating their children and then claim

confidentiality forthe underlying medicalrecords. For example, plaintiffs have made statements that a doctor

told them to vacate defendant’s residence. 

Therefore, the Court findsthat plaintiffs must agree to the productionoftheir children’s medicalrecords

unless they agree to: 1) present no evidence regarding advice, recommendations, or treatment received from

medicalpersonneland 2) provide no informationregarding their children’s medicalcondition. If plaintiffs agree

to these provisions, theymay present evidence that their childrenhad their blood taken based on their concerns

for their children’s health. However, plaintiffs must provide evidence that the testing occurred. If plaintiffs do

not agree to these provisions, then the Court orders the production of medical records pursuant to the

subpoenas. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04470-SI Document 32 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Defendant filed her motion on June 3, 2005. However, the motion was submitted as “REDACTION

to Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Enforce Subpoena” [Docket 21]. Plaintiffs filed their opposition

on June 3, 2005 [Docket #20].

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL KEEGAN and BETH KEEGAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IRENE S. KIVITZ,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04470 SI

ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OFMEDICAL

RECORDS

By letter briefs,1 the parties have brought to the Court a dispute regarding the production of plaintiffs’

children’s medical records. Defendant contends that the medical records should be produced because they

are relevant to its defense and plaintiffs have provided testimony relating to their children’s medical treatment.

Plaintiffs contend that the evidence is irrelevant, given that they do not bring a personal injury action on behalf

of their children, and that the information is privileged.

Plaintiffs assert that the medical records are privileged under California Evidence Code § 994. The

causes of action in this case are state claims, with the exception of the Fifteenth Cause of Action under 42

U.S.C. § 4852d. That claim involves the notification requirements for the presence of lead-based paint, which

is notrelevantto the medicalrecords. Therefore, the Court will apply state law under Federal Rule of Evidence

501.

California Evidence Code § 994 provides that “the patient, whether or not a party, has a privilege to

refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication between a patient and

Case 3:04-cv-04470-SI Document 32 Filed 07/12/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

physician.” However, “there is no privilege . . . ifsuch issue has been tendered by: . . . (2) any party claiming

through or under the patient.” Cal. Evid. Code § 996. 

The Court recognizes the privacy interests in medical records. However, plaintiffs may not provide

testimony related to medical advice they received from doctors treating their children and then claim

confidentiality forthe underlying medicalrecords. For example, plaintiffs have made statements that a doctor

told them to vacate defendant’s residence. 

Therefore, the Court findsthat plaintiffs must agree to the productionoftheir children’s medicalrecords

unless they agree to: 1) present no evidence regarding advice, recommendations, or treatment received from

medicalpersonneland 2) provide no informationregarding their children’s medicalcondition. If plaintiffs agree

to these provisions, theymay present evidence that their childrenhad their blood taken based on their concerns

for their children’s health. However, plaintiffs must provide evidence that the testing occurred. If plaintiffs do

not agree to these provisions, then the Court orders the production of medical records pursuant to the

subpoenas. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04470-SI Document 32 Filed 07/12/05 Page 4 of 4