Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00403/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00403-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

ROY T. MARSHALL,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 04cv0403 L (WMc)

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

QUASH AND/OR MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER [Doc. No.

111.]

vs.

SGT. RAIN; MS. PETERSON, RN; MR.

WILLIAMS, MTA; DONOVAN

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MEDICAL

STAFF, et al.; LIEUTENANT COBB; John

and Jane Does 1-10,

Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION

On January 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued by

Defendants upon the California Men’s Colony. (Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, Doc. 111 at 5:16-21.)

Plaintiff objects to eight document categories requested in the subpoena on various grounds of

confidentiality, privacy, uncertainty, ambiguity, relevance and overbreadth. (Plaintiff’s Motion to

Quash, Doc. 111 at 2-3.)

Plaintiff’s civil rights action against Defendants arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal

statute. [Doc. No. 1, Compl. at 3-4.] Because federal rights may be impacted by assertions of

privilege, it is well established that the existence of those claimed privileges is governed by principles

of federal common law. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989); see also Kelly v. City of San

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 656 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (“It obviously would make no sense to permit state law

to determine what evidence is discoverable in cases brought pursuant to federal statutes whose central

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 125 Filed 05/23/08 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 The physician-patient privilege as articulated by California statute is not recognized under federal common law and does

not apply in a federal civil rights case. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 618 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

purpose is to protect citizens from abuses of power by state or local authorities. If state law

controlled, state authorities could effectively insulate themselves from constitutional norms simply

by developing privilege doctrines that made it virtually impossible for plaintiffs to develop the kind

of information they need to prosecute their federal claims.”) 

Plaintiff, however, argues that the records Defendants seek are protected from disclosure by

both federal and state privileges. Plaintiff, however, is incorrect. As explained above, “only federal

common law governs the adjudication of federal rights.” Leon v. County of San Diego, 202 F.R.D.

631, 636 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (emphasis added) (citing Taylor v. Los Angeles Police Dept. 1999 WL

33101661, *3 n. 1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 1999) (“The so-called privileges raised by Defendants under

various provisions of the California Evidence and Penal Codes are not federal evidentiary privileges

and do not warrant discussion.”)

Accordingly, the Court will only address the federal privilege asserted by Plaintiff, which is

the constitutional right to privacy.1 (Plaintiff’s Motion at 4:19.) Plaintiff also makes a relevance

objection to the requested documents, which will be addressed by the Court. Id. at 3:25-28. Finally,

on the issue of scope, this Court will rule only as to the eighth category of documents sought by

Defendants (Medical Records) and objected to by Plaintiff because Defendants have withdrawn

without prejudice their document requests in the following seven categories: (1) case summary; (2)

legal documents; (3) classification; (4) disciplinary; (5) general chronos; (6) miscellaneous and (7)

confidential files. (Defendants’ Oppo., Doc. No. 114 at 2:15-18.)

II.

DISCOVERY STANDARD

Federal discovery rules 26 through 37 “have been interpreted liberally to allow maximum

discovery.” Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F. Supp. 1090, 1114 (1984 E.D. N.C.) (citing Hickman v. Taylor,

329 U.S. 495 (1947).) Accordingly, in federal cases, the burden of resisting discovery is on the party

opposing discovery. Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Blankenship

v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975.). 

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 125 Filed 05/23/08 Page 2 of 5
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

III.

RELEVANCE

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery of material that is (1)

“not privileged” and (2) “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, “[t]he information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information

sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. 

A relevant matter is “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters

that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603,

617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).) 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by Defendants.

Specifically, Plaintiff states that as a result of a fall in the prison cafeteria and Defendants’ subsequent

treatment of the injuries resulting from the fall, he was restricted to a wheelchair with a classification

of “Permanent Mobility Impaired.” (Complaint at 4-5.) Plaintiff further alleges that “he has suffered

cruel and unusual punishment and true neglect of medical care which has onset irrepairable [sic]

damage.” (Complaint at 6.) Accordingly, Defendants’ request for Plaintiff’s medical records from

May 1, 2007 to the present is relevant to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim in which he alleges,

“I had suffered nerve damage, and was forced to stay in the hospital for approximately 3 months. I

am currently restricted to a wheelchair and classified “permanent mobility impaired.”) (Complaint

at 5.) The records requested by Defendants bear on Plaintiff’s claim that he is “currently restricted

to a wheelchair” and has suffered “irrepairable [sic] damage”. (Complaint at 5-6.) Plaintiff’s

relevance objection to Defendants’ request for medical records is therefore OVERRULED. In

addition, Plaintiff’s overbreadth objection to Defendants’ medical records request is OVERRULED.

Defendants are entitled to examine Plaintiff’s current medical records due to Plaintiff’s allegation that

his injury is ongoing and irreparable.

IV.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY

In general, federal courts recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that may be raised

in response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District, 542 F.2d

1114, 1116 (9th Cir.1976) (balancing the invasion of minor's privacy rights against the court's need

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 125 Filed 05/23/08 Page 3 of 5
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

for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir.1992), cert. den. 507

U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct. 1255, 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993) (denying discovery of names of participants in a

medical study due to privacy interests of the individual participants); Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.,

132 F.R.D. 548, 550-51 (E.D.Cal.1990) (balancing targeted individual's right of privacy against

public's need for discovery in employment discrimination case). 

Resolution of a privacy objection or request for a protective order requires a balancing of the

need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted. Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir.1984), cert. den. 469 U.S. 1108, 105 S.Ct. 784, 83 L.Ed.2d 778

(1985) ( balancing need for disclosure against potential harm to the subject of the disclosure); Rubin

v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 114 F.R.D. 1 (N.D.Cal.1986) (balancing university's interest in

confidentiality against plaintiff's need to prove discrimination). 

In this matter, the Defendants’ need to evaluate the continuing medical condition of Plaintiff

outweighs Plaintiff’s right to maintain the privacy of his medical records. As explained above, the

medical records are highly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that he now has a disabling injury as a result

of Defendants’ medical indifference and the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment by prison

officials. Moreover, Defendants indicate in their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion that they do not

oppose a protective order governing the use and dissemination of Plaintiff’s medical records to

defense counsel and experts. (Defs. Oppo. at 6:21-23.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is

DENIED. However, Plaintiff’s motion, in the alternative, for a protective order governing the release

of medical records from May 2007 to the present is GRANTED.

V.

DISCLOSURE SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Courts have fulfilled the need for discovery while protecting privacy by ordering the

production of documents subject to a protective order limiting the access to the material at issue to

parties, counsel and those experts who require such information to formulate an opinion. Soto v. City

of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995.) Defendants have suggested a protective order

should the Court order the production of documents. The Court finds that a protective order will serve

the interests of both parties in facilitating discovery and yet protecting the privacy of the parties

involved. 

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 125 Filed 05/23/08 Page 4 of 5
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

Therefore, the Court orders the parties to enter into a protective order governing the documents that

the Court has ordered to be disclosed. The Court orders Defendants to submit a proposed protective

order to Plaintiff for his signature no later than June 6, 2008. After execution by all parties, said

protective order shall be lodged with the Court for its signature no later than June 20, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2008

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Copies to:

HONORABLE M. JAMES LORENZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 125 Filed 05/23/08 Page 5 of 5