Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00985/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00985-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID C. CORSER,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

COUNTY OF MERCED; GLORIA CORTEZKEENE; DEMETRIOS TATUM; Merced

County Sheriff’s employees

SHERIFF MARK PAZIN, UNDERSHERIFF

BILL BLAKE, COMMANDER PARRISH,

DEPUTY ZYSKOWSKI, DEPUTY L.

MILLER, VOLUNTEER SMALLWOOD,

(BADGE #V330); Merced County

Public Works Director PAUL

FILLEBROWN; LARRY GONZALES;

MARIA SOCORRO GONZALES; RUTH

STONE; and DOES 1 through 50, 

 Defendants.

1:05-CV-00985 OWW DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF

DAVID C. CORSER’S MOTION TO

QUASH SUBPOENA 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff David C. Corser (“Plaintiff”) moves to quash

subpoenas issued by the court on July 17, 2006. Defendant Maria

Socorro Gonzales (“Defendant”) opposes the motion. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The complaint was filed on July 29, 2005. Doc. 1, Compl. 

Defendant Larry Gonzales’ motion to dismiss the second, fifth,

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 65 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 7
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

and seventh causes of action and strike the fifth, Doc. 18, Mot.

to Dismiss and Strike, filed on September 30, 2005, was denied by

order entered January 10, 2006. Doc. 35, Order. Defendant

County of Merced answered on October 19, 2005. Doc. 23, Answer. 

Defendant Maria Socorro Gonzales (“Defendant”) answered on

November 11, 2005. Doc. 31, Answer. Defendant Larry Gonzales

answered on November 18, 2005. Doc. 33, Answer. Plaintiff moved

on July 20, 2006, to quash subpoenas issued by the court on July

17, 2006. Doc. 58, Mot. to Quash. Defendant filed opposition on 

August 7, 2006. 

III. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff moves to quash the July 17, 2006, subpoenas issued

to Mercy Urgent Care Life Time Health Care (“Mercy”), Olivewood

Meadows Occupational Health Center (“Olivewood”), Hansen-Richey

Radiology Group (“HRRG”), the California State Compensation Fund

(“the Fund”), and the California Department of Industrial

Relations – Workers Compensation Division (“WCD”). The subpoenas

issued to Mercy, Olivewood, and HRRG commanded those entities to: 

produce and permit inspection and copying of the

following documents or objects . . .:

Any and all documents and records pertaining to

care, treatment[,] and examination, including but

not limited to, all office, emergency room, inpatient/out-patient charts, x-ray films, MRI

films, [and] CT scans. Any and all records of

payment and/or discount regarding any medical

billing as well as the bills themselves, billing

information, including but not limited to

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 65 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

statements, computer printouts, all charges,

credits, payments, adjustments[,] and/or writeoffs, and the sources of each, such as all EOBs

from any insurance carrier reflecting any and all

credits and adjustments and write-offs to the

bills by virtue of any payments and/or contractual

agreements/adjustments, including fees, etc.[,]

for professional services including Medicare,

Medicaid, etc.[,] pertaining to [Plaintiff][.] 

Doc. 58, Mot. to Quash, Ex. A. The subpoena issued to the Fund

commanded it to:

produce and permit inspection and copying of the

following documents or objects . . .:

Any and all non-privileged records and documents,

including but not limited to industrial injury

records, benefits entitled to or paid out, medical

records and information of health and/or accident

claims pertaining to [Plaintiff].

Id. The subpoena issued to the WCD commanded it to:

produce and permit inspection and copying of the

following documents or objects . . .:

Any and all records regarding commission awarded

to [Plaintiff] . . . from any and all dates. 

Id.

IV.LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff moves to quash these subpoenas “for failure to

follow the procedures outlined in [California Civil Procedure

Code Section] 1985.3.”:

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 65 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Attorneys for Defendant [] have requested

documents which require specific [n]otice to

[c]onsumers or [e]mployees. Defendant [] has

failed to comply with the rules and procedures

protecting the privacy of medical and other

personal records. In particular, [Defendant] has

failed to include proper notice as required in

subdivision (e), sections 1 through 3, which

should have included a basic statement of

consumer/employee rights regarding the option to

object to the release of protected documents. 

Doc. 58, Mot. to Quash, 1-2. 

A federal court follows federal procedural law. Kohlrautz

v. Oilmen Participation Corp., 441 F.3d 827, 830 (9 Cir. 2006). th

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply irrespective of the

source of subject-matter jurisdiction, and irrespective of

whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal. Vess v.

Ciba-Geigy Corp., 317 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9 Cir. 2003). Discovery th

is a procedural matter governed by federal law. Sibbach v.

Wilson & Co., Inc., 312 U.S. 1, 14 (1941); Univ. of Texas at

Austin v. Vratil, 96 F.3d 1337, 1340 n.3 (10 Cir. 1996); Fagin th

v. Gilmartin, 432 F.3d 276, 285 n.2 (3 Cir. 2005). rd

State law is of very little relevance to discovery

in a federal action. Rule 69 provides that

discovery in aid of execution may be had either in

the manner provided in the federal rules or in the

manner provided by the practice of the state in

which the district court is held. State law may

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 65 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

affect questions of privilege. But except for

those two matters it is wholly settled that

discovery in a federal court is governed only by

these rules and that state discovery practices are

irrelevant. 

8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 2d

§ 2005 (1994 & Suppl. 2006). 

Plaintiff has not asserted any privilege. To the extent

that Section 1985.3 may provide a California-law privilege,

however, the privilege does not apply to this litigation. Rule 26

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant

part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,

not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or

defense of any party[.]

Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence provides, in relevant part: 

Except as otherwise required by the Constitution

of the United States or provided by Act of

Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme

Court pursuant to statutory authority, the

privilege of a witness, person, government, State,

or political subdivision thereof shall be governed

by the principles of the common law as they may be

interpreted by the courts of the United States in

the light of reason and experience. However, in

civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an

element of a claim or defense as to which State

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 65 Filed 08/31/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege

of a witness, person, government, State, or

political subdivision thereof shall be determined

in accordance with State law.

Rule 501, Fed. R. Evid.

Here, the rule of decision is provided by Title 42, Section

1983, of the United States Code. The scope of an evidentiary

privilege in a Section 1983 civil rights action is a question of

federal law. Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 643 (C.D. Cal. 2005)

(citing Breed v. United States District Court, 542 F.2d 1114,

1115 (9 Cir. 1976)); see also Everitt v. Brezzel, 750 F.Supp. th

1063, 1066 (D.Colo. 1990) (“since this case involves civil rights

claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988), [the court] will

look to federal common law to determine whether the materials are

privileged”). 

That there are state-law claims subject to the court’s

supplemental jurisdiction under Title 28, Section 1367(c)(3), of

the United States Code, does not alter this conclusion. “Where

there are federal question claims and pendent state law claims

present, the federal law of privilege applies.” Agster v.

Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836, 839-40 (9 Cir. 2005); accord th

Hancock v. Hobbs, 967 F.2d 462, 467 (11 Cir. 1992); Hancock v. th

Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367, 1373 (6 Cir. 1992); von Bulow v. von th

Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 141 (2 Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 481 U.S. nd

1015 (1987); Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., Inc., 671

F.2d 100, 104 (3 Cir. 1982); Memorial Hospital for McHenry rd

County v. Shadur, 664 F.2d 1058, 1061 n. 3 (7 Cir. 1981); see th

also Fed. R. Evid. 501 advisory committee’s note (“[i]t is also

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 65 Filed 08/31/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

intended that the Federal law of privileges should be applied

with respect to pendent State law claims when they arise in a

Federal question case”).

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is

DENIED. 

SO ORDERED

DATED: August _30__, 2006.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 65 Filed 08/31/06 Page 7 of 7