Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02793/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02793-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAFAK PERVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN

ORDER

(ECF No. 33)

Defendant, County of Sacramento, brings this motion seeking to compel plaintiff to 

provide an authorization for court records, answers to requests for admission, and answers to 

interrogatories. (ECF No. 33.) Having considered the parties’ joint statement, arguments at the 

hearing on this matter, and the relevant law, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion, but with the 

clarifications and modifications mentioned below. 

I. BACKGROUND

The underlying dispute concerns plaintiff being prevented from purchasing a firearm in 

2017 due to her being committed to a mental health institution in 2000. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 17.) A 

central issue in plaintiff’s complaint, and most of the disputed discovery, is whether plaintiff was 

committed voluntarily or involuntarily. Plaintiff also alleges that while she was admitted to a

mental health institution, she never received the procedural safeguards—notice and a certification 

review hearing—while at the institution. Plaintiff asserts this failure amounted to a deprivation of 

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 9
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

due process and her institutionalization, therefore cannot be a used as a predicate to deprive her of 

her Second Amendment Rights. 

Plaintiff filed the present suit on October 17, 2018. After the court granted several state 

defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27), the action proceeded solely against defendant 

Sacramento County. Defendant now seeks to compel several discovery responses related to 

plaintiff’s mental health, her providers, and her allegations. (See ECF Nos. 33, 34.) 

II. RELEVANT STATUTORY SCHEME AND LEGAL STANDARD

The California Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, California Welfare & Institution Code 

§§ 5000 et seq., established a statutory scheme providing for the involuntary civil commitment of 

individuals with mental health disorders. See id. § 5001. Section 5150 provides for a person, 

upon a finding of probable cause, to be placed in an involuntary seventy-two-hour hold in a 

psychiatric facility for evaluation and treatment when that person is determined to be a danger to 

herself or others, or is gravely disabled, due to a mental health disorder. Id. § 5150. Under 

section 5250(a), a person detained for seventy-two hours under Section 5150 may be detained for 

up to fourteen additional days if the staff of the facility evaluates the person’s condition and finds 

the person “is, as a result of a mental disorder . . . , a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or 

gravely disabled.” Section 5150(i)(1) requires the treating facility to notify the committed person 

of the right to an attorney and a hearing before a judge if the facility decides to hold the 

committed person longer than seventy-two hours.

California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 8103(g)(1) bars a person certified for 

intensive treatment under Section 5250 from owning, possessing, controlling, receiving or 

purchasing, or attempting to own, possess, control, receive or purchase, any firearm for five years 

after the person’s release from a mental health facility. A person committed under Section 5250, 

however, may request a hearing to lift the prohibition, and may own, possess, control, receive, or 

purchase any firearm if a court finds the State of California has not shown by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the person would not be likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner. Id.

§ 8103(g)(1), (4). Although Section 8103 on its face provides for only a five-year firearm 

prohibition on persons subject to a Section 5250 hold, it creates in effect a lifetime firearm 

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 9
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

prohibition under federal law because of Section 5250’s procedural safeguards and DOJ reporting 

requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (imposing a lifetime firearm ban on any person “who 

has been adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution”).1 California 

law directs the State Department of Hospitals to make records of Section 5250 determinations 

available to the DOJ. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 8104.

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). Such “motion may be made if . . . (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory 

submitted under Rule 33.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). An “evasive or incomplete disclosure, 

answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(4). “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 

litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 

616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th 

Cir. 2011)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RECORDS

Defendant first argues that plaintiff should be compelled to sign an authorization 

permitting defendant to obtain potential court records regarding plaintiff’s September 2000 

treatment. Plaintiff responds that the authorization defendant provided would require her to admit 

that there was in fact a court hearing on her mental competency in September 2000, an issue she 

vehemently disputes in this litigation. While the court is skeptical that plaintiff signing 

defendant’s authorization would be equivalent to a judicial admission, defendant is instructed to 

modify paragraph three of the authorization defendant provided plaintiff to include the bolded 

language: “While it is my understanding that the Sacramento County Superior Court files for one 

 

1

27 C.F.R. § 478.11(d) defines “committed to a mental institution” as “[a] formal commitment of 

a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The 

term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. . . . The term does not include a 

person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.” 

(emphasis added).

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 9
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

or more Sacramento County Superior Court proceedings involving me, if any, in or around the 

year 2000 may have been purged. . . .” 

The court finds that the documents that would potentially be released from this 

authorization are relevant and discoverable, and therefore orders plaintiff to sign and notarize the 

authorization plaintiff previously received from defendant, as modified above, by February 21, 

2020. 

Additionally, as discussed at the hearing on this matter, plaintiff is to submit a records

request to the Family Relations Courthouse defendant names in the parties’ joint statement, with 

the authorization mentioned above. The parties are also instructed to go to the courthouse 

together and retrieve the records if necessary. 

B. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 10, 11, 12, 13, 32, AND 37

1. Requests 10-13

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:

Admit that YOU were hospitalized at Sutter Center for Psychiatry from July 2000 to 

September 2000.

Response:

Objection: This discovery request is vague and overbroad as to time. Responding 

party cannot admit or deny until propounding party provide specific dates to admit 

or deny the fact. Responding party also objects to the term “hospitalized” being 

vague.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:

Admit that YOU received mental health treatment at Sutter Center for Psychiatry from 

July 2000 to September 2000.

Response:

Objection: This discovery request is vague and overbroad as to time. Responding 

party cannot admit or deny until propounding party provide specific dates to admit

or deny the fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:

Admit that YOU received eletroconvulsive therapy for YOUR mental health condition

while hospitalized at Sutter Center for Psychiatry from July 2000 to September 2000.

Response:

Objection: This discovery request is vague and overbroad as to time. Responding 

party cannot admit or deny until propounding party provide specific dates to admit 

or deny the fact. Responding party also objects to the term “hospitalized” being 

vague. Responding party also object to this request as it is compound and 

conjunctive.

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 9
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

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:

Admit that YOU experienced memory problems after YOUR mental health treatment at 

Sutter Center for Psychiatry from July 2000 to September 2000.

Response:

Objection: This discovery request is vague and overbroad as to time. Responding 

party cannot admit or deny until propounding party provide specific dates to admit 

or deny the fact. Responding party also objects to the term “problem” as it is not 

clearly defined. Each of Plaintiff’s responses indicate that the time frame is “vague” 

and overbroad.”

Plaintiff takes issue with the term “memory problems” in request 13. At the hearing on this 

matter, plaintiff agreed to admit that her doctor stated she was dealing with a memory problem. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is instructed to respond to this request with that stipulation. Regarding 

requests 10, 11, and 12, plaintiff is ordered to respond within the time allowed below. 

2. Requests 32 and 37

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32:

Admit that YOU attended a certification hearing under California Welfare & Institutions 

Code Section 5250 in a conference room at SCMHTC during YOUR stay at SCMHTC 

from 9/15/00 to 9/21/00.

Response: Objection: This discovery request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible 

so as to make a response because nowhere in California Welfare & Institutions Code 

Section 5250 does it mention a “certification hearing.”

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37:

Admit that YOU received notice of a hearing under California Welfare & Institutions 

Code Section 5250 during YOUR stay at SCMHTC from 9/15/00 to 9/21/00.

Response:

Objection: This discovery request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible so as to 

make a response because nowhere in California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 

5250 does it mention a “notice of a hearing.”

Plaintiff agrees to respond with the provision of including Section 5250 “et seq.” Plaintiff is to 

respond to these requests with that clarification within the time allowed below. 

C. INTERROGATORIES 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, AND 19

1. Interrogatories 2, 5, 9, 10, and 11

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all PERSONS (including name, ADDRESS, and 

telephone number) with knowledge of the facts set forth in YOUR response to 

Interrogatory No. 1

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 9
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

Response:

Objection: Responding party objects to this discovery request as it is vague and 

oppressive as it requires responding party to “Identify all PERSONS”. Not waiving 

said objection, responding party will answer this interrogatory limited to her 

knowledge of facts. Responding party also objects to this Interrogatory as it violates 

third parties’ right of privacy. Responding party will only provide the names of 

public individuals. 

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General

Shafak Pervez, Reach through Counsel

Betty Gamez, MRT; 2150 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95817;

916-875-1000

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Identify all PERSONS (including name, ADDRESS, and telephone number) with 

knowledge of the facts set forth in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 4.

Response:

Objection: Responding party objects to this discovery request as it is vague and 

oppressive as it requires responding party to “Identify all PERSONS”. Not waiving 

said objection, responding party will answer this interrogatory limited to her 

knowledge of facts presently known. Responding party further objects that this 

discovery request violates third parties’ right of privacy and will only disclose the 

names of those who are listed on documents related to medical records or employees 

working for government agencies. Responding party is unaware of the names and 

contact information of individuals responsive to this discovery request.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Identify all PERSONS (including name, ADDRESS, and telephone number) who had any 

COMMUNICATION with YOU relating to YOUR mental health condition(s), including 

but not limited to friends and family members, between the date of YOUR discharge from 

Sutter Center for Psychiatry in September 2000 and YOUR stay at SCMHTC in 

September 2000.

Response:

Xyz

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Identify all PERSONS (including name, ADDRESS, and telephone number), including 

but not limited to friends and family members, with knowledge regarding YOUR stay at 

SCMHTC from September 15, 2000 to September 21, 2000.

Response:

Objection: Responding party objects to this discovery request as it is vague and 

oppressive as it requires responding party to “Identify all PERSONS”. Not waiving 

said objection, responding party will answer this interrogatory limited to her 

knowledge of facts presently known. Responding party further objects that this 

discovery request violates third parties’ right of privacy and will only disclose the 

names of those who are listed on documents related to medical records or employees 

working for government agencies. Responding party elects to produce documents in 

response to this discovery request. Please see PERVEZ_05144-0520; 0526-0545.

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 6 of 9
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

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Identify all PERSONS (including name, ADDRESS, and telephone number) who were 

living in YOUR household at the time YOUR stay at SCMHTC began on September 15, 

2000.

Response:

Objection: Responding party objects to this discovery request as it is vague and 

oppressive as it requires responding party to “Identify all PERSONS”. Not waiving 

said objection, responding party will answer this interrogatory limited to her 

knowledge of facts presently known. Responding party further objects that this 

discovery request violates third parties’ right of privacy and will only disclose the

names of those who are listed on documents related to medical records or employees 

working for government agencies.

Plaintiff’s rationale of protecting third-parties’ privacy rights is directly contradicted by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which requires initial disclosure of “the name and, if known, the 

address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information.” Fed 

R. Civ. P 26(a)(1)(A)(i). The generic information outlined in Rule 26 is all that defendant is 

requesting in the present case. Additionally, cases involving third-party privacy rights generally

deal with much more intimate information. See Lakes v. Bath & Body Works LLC, No. 2:16-

CV-2989 MCE GGH, 2018 WL 1071335, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2018) (requiring a protective 

order before personal information such as Social Security number, medical records, financial 

records are disclosed); see also Hutton v. City of Martinez, 219 F.R.D. 164, 167 (N.D. Cal. 2003) 

(production of medical records and workers’ compensation files under protective order 

adequately safeguarded privacy concerns). The concern of disclosing intimate personal 

information is not present with these interrogatories. 

Plaintiff’s argument that these requests are irrelevant is unavailing. Plaintiff’s claim is, at 

least in part, premised on her mental health treatment being voluntary, not involuntary. These 

interrogatories are sufficiently tailored to seek information germane to that inquiry. Accordingly, 

plaintiff is ordered to respond to these interrogatories within the time allowed below. 

3. Interrogatories 14 and 15

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

STATE ALL FACTS that support YOUR contention that the COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO unjustifiably and erroneously operated a firearm prohibition reporting

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 7 of 9
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

8

system as alleged in paragraph 66 of the COMPLAINT.

Response:

Objection: This discovery request is cumulative, unduly burdensome and oppressive 

as propounding party’s Interrogatory No. 1 covers the same information to be 

discovered in this request.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

STATE ALL FACTS that support YOUR contention that the COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO unjustifiably and unreasonably failed to operate a firearm prohibition 

reporting system that maintained thorough and clear documentation to substantiate any 

record that would lead to a prohibition of a citizen’s constitutional right to own, posses, or 

purchase a firearm as alleged in paragraph 67 of the COMPLAINT.

Response:

Objection: This discovery request is cumulative, unduly burdensome and oppressive 

as propounding party’s Interrogatory No. 1 covers the same information to be 

discovered in this request.

Plaintiff is ordered to respond to these interrogatories. If plaintiff believes that her prior response 

has effectively responded to these interrogatories, she is free to assert the same. 

4. Interrogatories 16 and 17

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Do YOU contend that YOU were not hospitalized for a mental health condition under 

California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5250 by the COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO in September 2000?

Response:

Objection: This discovery request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible so as to 

make a response impossible without speculation as the meaning of the question. A 

review of California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5250 provides that the 

term “hospitalized” is never used. Plaintiff is unable to respond this discovery 

request.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

If YOUR answer to Interrogatory No. 16 is in the affirmative, STATE ALL FACTS that 

support YOUR contention that YOU were not hospitalized for a mental health condition 

under California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5250 by the COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO in September 2000.

Response:

N/A

The parties informed the court that they have reached an agreement regarding these 

interrogatories, and therefore the court does not address them here. 

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 8 of 9
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

9

5. Interrogatory 19

INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

Identify all PERSONS (including name, ADDRESS, and telephone number) who

provided mental health treatment and/or evaluation for YOUR mental health condition(s)

between January 1, 2000 and July 22, 2000.

Response:

Objection: Responding party objects to this discovery request as it is not 

proportional to the needs of this case because the information request is not 

important to the present action. Propounding party has been provided with 

documentation that the 5250 hold stemmed from its mental health facility in 

September of 2000. The case is alleging causes of action stemmed in procedural and 

substantive due process rights considerations. Attenuated medical records have no 

impact on the outcome of this case and requesting responding party to expend 

resources is improper for such evidentiary fishing expeditions.

As discussed in section III(C)(1) above, this information is relevant to plaintiff’s claim, and is 

therefore discoverable. Plaintiff is ordered to respond to this interrogatory within the time 

allowed below. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBEY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to compel is 

GRANTED with the conditions and clarifications mentioned above. Consistent with this order, 

plaintiff shall respond to defendant’s request for admissions, interrogatories, and provide 

defendant a signed and notarized authorization by February 21, 2020. The parties are additionally 

ordered to jointly seek plaintiff’s records, via the authorization, as outlined above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: February 13, 2020

.2793.pere

Case 2:18-cv-02793-KJM-KJN Document 36 Filed 02/13/20 Page 9 of 9