Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01568/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01568-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

cal 

1 05cv1568

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH M. MARSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, M.L. MURPHY,

M.D., DAVID L. CHADWICK, M.D.,

ROGER WILLIAMS, M.D., CHILDREN’S

HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER and DOES

1 to 100, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv1568 JLS (AJB)

Order Granting Motion to Compel

[Doc. No. 96]

Plaintiff brings this motion to compel seeking all records in the possession of Children’s

Hospital and Health Center (“CHHC”) and its Center for Child Protection, which pertain to Punanai

Polanco, Douglas Allen Yates, Jr. and Harvey Thomas. Defendants’ contend that Plaintiff is not entitled

to the requested discovery because the requested records run afoul of privacy interests and the Health

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The parties submitted letter briefs as this

motion is appropriate for submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule

7.1(d)(1). Based upon the moving papers and for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel is hereby GRANTED.

Case 3:05-cv-01568-JLS-AJB Document 97 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 6
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

cal 

2 05cv1568

Background

The instant action was brought by Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution under both § 1983 and state law, intentional

infliction of emotional distress and violation of state civil rights statutes. Plaintiff was convicted of the

murder of Phillip Buell. The complaint in the instant action alleges a conspiracy between Defendants to

mislead and distort the medical history of Phillip Buell and to perform his autopsy in a false and

deliberate manner to convict Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint also alleges that the Defendants improperly

influenced the County of San Diego to allow them to perform autopsies and autopsy related services in

cases where children’s deaths were suspected of having been caused by abuse. 

Plaintiff brings this motion to compel seeking all records in the possession of Children’s

Hospital and Health Center (“CHHC”) and its Center for Child Protection, which pertain to Punanai

Polanco, Douglas Allen Yates, Jr. and Harvey Thomas, who were admitted to the hospital and died there

in November 1983, October 1983 and January 1986, respectively. Punanai Polanco was autopsied at

CHHC, which subsequently reported force feeding by her caretaker as the cause of her death. When a

second autopsy was performed, it revealed that Punanai had died accidentally and all charges against her

parents were dropped. Douglas Allen Yates, Jr. (son of John and Michelle Ferraro) was autopsied at

CHHC, which resulted in charges of child abuse and murder being brought against his parents. During

the criminal prosecution of John and Michelle Ferraro, the cause of death was determined to be the

result of an accidental fall and all charges against the parents were dismissed. Harvey Thomas was

transferred to CHHC because he was suffering from symptoms attributable to a congenital defect, but

was diagnosed with non-accidental injuries as a result of violent shaking or a fall. The CHHC finding

resulted in the removal of the Thomas’s other child from the home, and the Thomas’s were charged with

murder. Subsequent expert testimony showed that the cause of death was the congenital defect and the

Thomas’s were cleared of all charges. Both the Ferraros and Thomas’s brought suit, but each case was

dismissed based on the Mandated Reporter Immunity found in Penal Code section 11172(a).

Case 3:05-cv-01568-JLS-AJB Document 97 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 6
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

cal 

1

All future references will be to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated. 

3 05cv1568

Legal Standard

 I. Rule 37 - Motion to Compel

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)1 states, “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any

matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence,

description, nature, custody, condition of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity

and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter . . . Relevant information need

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1). “Generally, the purpose of discovery is to remove

surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their

dispute. Toward this end, Rule 26(b) is liberally interpreted to permit wide-ranging discovery of

information even though the information may not be admissible at the trial.” U.S. ex rel. Schwartz v.

TRW, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 388, 392 (C.D. Cal 2002)(internal citations omitted). 

Federal Rule 37(a)(2)(B), allows the discovering party to move for an order compelling an

answer, a designation, or an inspection in accordance with a specific discovery request. Fed. R. Civ.

Pro. 37(a)(2)(B). This rule establishes “a flexible means by which a court may enforce compliance with

the Federal discovery procedures through a broad choice of remedies and penalties.” B.F. Goodrich Tire

Co. v. Lyster, 328 F. 2d 411, 415 (5th Cir. 1954). Answers that are evasive or incomplete are treated as

a failure to disclose. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(a)(3). 

Discussion

At issue in this motion is the balance of the families’ privacy against the public interest in

disclosure. Defendants’ contend that Plaintiff’s motion to compel should be denied because the

requested documents are protected by: 1) the right to privacy in the confidentiality of one’s own medical

records, which extends to the family of the decedent; 2) HIPAA regulations which prohibit health care

providers from divulging patients’ medical records without their consent or a qualified protective order

and; 3) The California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act which provides that “[n]o provider of

Case 3:05-cv-01568-JLS-AJB Document 97 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 6
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

cal 

2

Powell v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1508, 1526 (N.D. Cal. 1984). A deceased patient retains a

privacy right. Although not raised in the Defendant’s brief, the privacy interests of the deceased

diminishes with the passage of time.

3

Fritsch v. City of Chula Vista, 187 F.R.D. 614 (S.D. Cal. 1999); Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145 F.R.D. 683 (E.D. Cal. 193); Powell v. United States, 584 F. Supp. at 1526; National Archives and

Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004); Division of Medical Quality, Board of Medical

Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal. App. 3d 669 (1979).

4 05cv1568

health care . . . shall disclose medical information regarding a patient . . . without first obtaining an

authorization except . . . by a court pursuant to an order of that court.” Cal. Civ. Code §56.10 (2007).

I. Balancing of the Family’s Privacy and the Public Interest in Disclosure

The United States Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in the confidentiality of

medical records and this right has been extended to include privacy rights of the deceased.2

 The right of

privacy is balanced against the public interest in disclosure.3 The party seeking disclosure must show

that the public interest is significant and that the information is likely to advance that interest. The

relevant factors to be considered in determining the scope of protection to be afforded individual privacy

rights includes: 1) the encroachment of the individual’s privacy right; 2) whether the encroachment

would impact an area that has traditionally been off limits for most regulation; 3) whether the information is available from other sources; 4) the extent to which the privacy rights impinge on the rights of

others; and 5) whether the interests of society at large encourage a need for the encroachment. Pagano

v. Oroville Hospital, 145 F.R.D. at 699.

Alternatively, the public interest requirement may be satisfied when the information sought is

necessary to show that responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in the performance of their duties. National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. at 173. In the

instant case, the Plaintiff is requesting the information to establish a modus operandi of falsely claiming

child abuse murder when the manner of death was accidental. “The requester must also produce

evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety

might have occurred.” Id. at 174. Here, the Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to warrant a

belief that the impropriety may have occurred. As such, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that a significant

public interest exists that outweighs the individual privacy rights of the three deceased children and their

families in keeping such records confidential. Furthermore, an individual’s privacy rights with regard to

Case 3:05-cv-01568-JLS-AJB Document 97 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 6
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

cal 

4

Acara v. Banks, 480 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S.275 (2001); Agee

v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 284 (2006); Walker v. Gerald, 2006 WL 1997635 (E.D.La. 2006); Poli v.

Monuntain Valley’s Health Ctrs., Inc., 2006 WL 83378 (E.D.Cal. 2006); Cassidy v. Nicolo, 2005 WL

3334523 (W.D.N.Y. 2005); Johnson v. Quander, 307 F.Supp.2d 79(D.D.C. 2005); Univ. Of Colo. Hosp.

v. Denver Publishing Company, 340 F.Supp.2d 1142 (D.Colo.2004); O’Donnell v. Blue Cross Blue

Shield of Wyo., 173 F.Supp.2d 1176 (D.Wyo.2001); Means v. Ind. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 963 F.Supp.

1131 (M.D.Ala.1997); Wright v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 959 F.Supp. 356 (N.D.Miss.1997).

5 05cv1568

medical records is diminished after death. Powell, 584 F.Supp. 1508 at 1526. The parent’s privacy

rights may be impinged by the disclosure, this is outweighed by the fact that the information can only be

obtained through these confidential medical records. Cox Broadcasting Corp. V. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469,

474 (1975). While the Defendants contend that the information requested approaches or exceeds the

outer boundaries of relevance, the Court does not agree. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that the

information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding a

modus operandi of the Defendants and as such, Plaintiff is entitled to the requested discovery.

II. HIPAA & California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act

HIPAA provides that a person may not be denied eligibility for health insurance based on their

medical records. It also imposes requirements on the Department of Health and Human Services

(“DHHS”), health plans and healthcare providers to protect information. The argument that HIPAA

provides for a private right of action has consistently been rejected because the law specifically states

that DHHS must pursue enforcement actions, because HIPAA does not provide an individual with a

private cause of action.4

 The Plaintiff states, and the court agrees, that HIPAA and the California

Confidentiality of Medical Information Act do not present a bar to the release of these records, since

such records can be disclosed if compelled by a court order and the use of such records is limited by the

protective order in this case.

Conclusion

Case 3:05-cv-01568-JLS-AJB Document 97 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 6
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

cal 

5

Any privilege Defendant’s wish to assert that was not covered by this order must be done in

compliance with the Federal Rules.

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\Marsh\05cv1568.Marsh.v.County.of.SD.Order.mtc2.wpd 6 05cv1568

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED. Defendants

shall produce all non-privileged5

 documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests on or before November 9,

2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:05-cv-01568-JLS-AJB Document 97 Filed 10/15/07 Page 6 of 6