Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00418/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00418-24/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME REYES JR. Deceased, 

THROUGH HIS SUCESSORS IN 

INTEREST MIRELLA REYES and 

JAIME REYES SR.; MIRELLA REYES, 

Individually; and JAIME REYES SR., 

Individually,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, a public entity, CITY 

OF FRESNO POLICE CHIEF JERRY 

DYER in his individual and official 

capacities, JUAN AVILA, MIGUEL 

ALVAREZ, and DOES 3 through 10,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:13-CV-00418-DAD-SKO

ORDER TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS

IN CAMERA AND FOR ADDITIONAL

BRIEFING

(Doc. 129)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Production 

of Defendant Juan Avila’s Disability and Retirement Documents (the “Motion”). (Doc. 129.) 

In their briefing associated with the Motion, Plaintiffs request Defendant Avila’s “PORAC 

Long-Term Disability Application Documents” (the “PORAC Documents”) and “City of Fresno 

Fire and Police Retirement Board Disability Retirement Documents” (the “City Retirement 

Documents”). (Doc. 158 at 2.) Defendants contend, in pertinent part, that the City Retirement 

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 169 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Documents are both privileged and irrelevant. (See id. at 26–32.) However, the City Retirement 

Documents are not in the record for this case. Absent an in camera review of the City Retirement 

Documents, the Court cannot determine whether any portion of these documents are privileged or 

relevant. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to provide the City Retirement Documents 

directly to the Court for in camera review no later than Wednesday, November 2, 2016.1

In addition, while Defendant Avila asserts that the PORAC Documents and the City 

Retirement Documents are privileged, he fails to specify which statements in these documents are 

privileged. (See, e.g., id. at 27–32.) An itemized assertion of privilege–i.e., an assertion of 

privileged as to each purportedly privileged statement–may be necessary for the Court to 

determine whether any statements in these documents are privileged. Further briefing from the 

parties is also warranted regarding whether the disclosure of information in the PORAC 

Documents and the City Retirement Documents by Defendant Avila and Dr. Price-Sharps–at 

Defendant Avila’s request–constituted a waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege as to that 

information. Compare Dorato v. Smith, 163 F. Supp. 3d 837, 888 (D.N.M. Dec. 11, 2015) (patient 

cannot invoke the psychotherapist-patient privilege “as to communications whose confidentiality 

he has already compromised for his own benefit” (quoting United States v. Hudson, Criminal 

Action No. 13–20063–01–JWL, 2013 WL 4768084, at *4 (D. Kan. Sept. 5, 2013))); Mukes v. City 

of Milwaukee, No. 13–cv–1268–pp, 2015 WL 3823887, at *5 (E.D. Wis. June 19, 2015) (patient 

“waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege as to” his “mental health records” where he 

“voluntarily submitted an application for benefits which included” those “records to a third party” 

(quoting Hudson, 2013 WL 4768084, at *4)); Barmore v. City of Rockford, No. 09 C 50236, 2012 

WL 386734, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2012) (noting that “[i]t is not clear that protecting the 

confidentiality of communications in the context of an application for disability benefits rises to 

the same level of public concern as the interests described by the Supreme Court” in Jaffee v. 

 

1

In their briefing regarding the Motion, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants “have control over” the City 

Retirement Documents. (Doc. 158 at 26.) Defendants do not contest that they have control over these 

documents. Thus, absent any indication to the contrary, the Court presumes that the City Retirement 

Documents are within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 169 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) and declining to “extend the psychotherapist-patient privilege to [the 

defendant’s] communications with psychiatrists in relation to his application for disability), with 

Awalt v. Marketti, 287 F.R.D. 409, 420 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (“A person who discloses privileged 

information to a third-party waives the privilege in the absence of an agreement to keep the 

information confidential.” (citing Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, 128 F.3d 1122, 1127 (7th Cir. 

1997))); Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household Int’l, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 412, 433 (N.D. Ill. 

2006) (agreeing “with those cases finding that selective waiver may be appropriate where the 

disclosing party took steps to preserve its privilege,” such as by “insist[ing] on a confidentiality 

agreement to protect the information”). See generally In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 

1127–28 (9th Cir. 2012) (declining to adopt the selective-waiver approach in the context of the 

attorney-client privilege and noting that “selective waiver does not serve the purpose of 

encouraging full disclosure to one’s attorney in order to obtain informed legal assistance; it merely 

encourages voluntary disclosure to government agencies, thereby extending the privilege beyond 

its intended purpose”); Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 506 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (“The principle of 

limited or selective waiver . . . is not uniformly recognized, and where recognized appears to be 

limited to voluntary disclosure of privileged materials to a governmental agency in a separate and 

nonpublic investigation.” (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant Avila to file a brief no later than Wednesday, 

November 2, 2016, addressing which specific statements in the PORAC Documents and the City 

Retirement Documents are allegedly privileged, as well as the basis for how the privilege for each 

statement was not waived by Defendant Avila.

2

 

 

2

See, e.g., I.R. v. City of Fresno, Nos. 1:12–CV–00558–AWI–GSA, 1:13–CV–00850 AWI GSA, 2014 WL 

1419305, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014) (“[T]he party seeking to invoke the benefit of the privilege bears 

the burden of showing that: 1) the therapist is licensed, 2) the communications were confidential, and 3) the 

communications were made during the course of diagnosis or treatment.” (citing United States v. Romo, 

413 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005))). 

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 169 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Plaintiffs may file a responsive brief as to Defendant Avila’s assertion of privilege for any 

communications in the PORAC Documents and the City Retirement Documents no later than 

November 7, 2016.3

To provide an opportunity for the parties to submit the filings discussed in this Order, the 

hearing regarding the Motion is CONTINUED from Wednesday, November 2, 2016, to Tuesday, 

November 22, 2016, at 3:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

The Court cautions Defendant Avila that providing a statement from the PORAC Documents or the City 

Retirement Documents may destroy any purported privilege associated with that statement. The Court 

therefore proposes that Defendant Avila only generally identify each statement at issue, such as by noting 

the page and line number for the statement under discussion.

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 169 Filed 10/26/16 Page 4 of 4