Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02844/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02844-15/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES HENRY FLOURNOY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERIC MANESS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2844-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff , a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, has filed several motions to quash, as well as a “motion for an order compelling 

discovery from Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones,” who is not a party to this action. For the 

reasons stated below, the motions are denied. 

I. Background 

Plaintiff asserts claims against defendants Sahba, Bauer, and Kinder. He claims that 

Bauer and Sahba were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by failing to provide him with 

a wheelchair while he was incarcerated at the Sacramento County Main Jail commencing in 

October 2009. ECF No. 22, ¶10. He claims that Kinder used excessive force against him in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment when Kinder removed plaintiff from a courtroom on October 

29, 2009. He also asserts a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim against Kinder. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-02844-KJM-EFB Document 99 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 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 

 

2

II. Plaintiff’s Motions to Quash 

Plaintiff objects to Bauer and Kinder’s subpoenas requesting production of plaintiff’s 

medical and psychiatric/mental health records from October 1, 2006, through the present. See 

ECF Nos. 84, 85, 86, 91.1 Plaintiff argues that the information in these records is privileged, 

overbroad, and imposes an undue burden. 

 Bauer and Kinder argue that plaintiff waived any privacy rights with respect to his 

medical and mental health records by putting such privileged information at issue in this case. 

Specifically, plaintiff claims that Bauer wrongfully confiscated his wheelchair while he was 

temporarily housed at the Sacramento County Main Jail from approximately October 2009 to 

June 2010. Further, plaintiff claims that he was thrown down a flight of stairs by defendant 

Kinder in October 2009, and suffered physical and mental injuries resulting therefrom. Plaintiff 

testified at his deposition that four different injuries resulted in his need for a wheelchair, 

including an assault in December 2006, a motor vehicle rollover accident in January 2007, and an 

injury while climbing a hill at San Quentin State Prison in approximately March 2009. 

Furthermore, plaintiff testified regarding ongoing physical and mental injuries caused by 

defendants that he still suffers to date, and he testified that he is claiming these ongoing injuries 

as present and future damages against the defendants. Plaintiff also made it clear at his deposition 

that he was claiming specific mental health injuries caused by the defendants, including 

depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and was pursuing a claim for damages regarding 

same. Defendants also argue that the records requests place no burden on plaintiff, as the records 

are sought from plaintiff’s medical/mental health providers and will not result in expense or 

inconvenience to plaintiff. 

A party may serve a subpoena commanding a nonparty “to produce documents, 

electronically stored information, or tangible things . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C). Upon a 

 1

 Plaintiff’s initial motion also sought an extension of time to serve discovery responses. 

ECF No. 84. However, plaintiff filed a notice with that motion asking the court to “just address 

the requested time [he] need[s] to file an objection to the . . . subpoena” and to “disregard” the 

request as it pertains to other “discovery discrepancies.” Id. at 6. Accordingly, the court will 

disregard plaintiff’s request for an extension of time. 

Case 2:11-cv-02844-KJM-EFB Document 99 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 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 

 

3

timely motion, the court will quash a subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other 

protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). A party may 

waive his right to privacy in his medical records by placing them at issue in a case. Smith v. 

Solano County, No. 2:11-cv-00142-MCE-EFB P, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120869, at *3-4 (E. D. 

Cal. Aug. 24, 2012). Any waiver, however, is “limited to the private information that is relevant 

to the lawsuit.” Enwere v. Terman Associates, L.P., No. C 07-1239 JF (PVT), 2008 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 101901, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008). 

In this action, plaintiff seeks money damages against defendants for causing him to suffer 

physical and emotional injuries. Thus, plaintiff has placed his medical and mental condition at 

issue, and thereby waived his privacy rights with respect to his medical and mental health records. 

Defendants are entitled to discovery of these records to the extent they are relevant to these 

claims. Defendants’ subpoenas for these records, which encompass a limited and relevant period 

of time, are reasonable. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions to quash the subpoenas are denied. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

Plaintiff also moves to compel nonparty Sheriff Jones to respond to plaintiff’s request for 

production of documents. ECF No. 93. Sheriff Jones, who is not a party to this lawsuit, is under 

no obligation to respond to plaintiff’s request for production, as such requests may only be served 

on parties to the lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P 34(a). Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

denied. 

To the extent plaintiff is requesting permission to subpoena certain documents from 

Sheriff Jones, the request is also denied. The court previously informed plaintiff of the 

requirements for obtaining a subpoena to obtain documents from a non-party. See ECF No. 81. 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with those requirements. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-02844-KJM-EFB Document 99 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 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 

 

4

IV. Order 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to quash and motion to 

compel (ECF Nos. 84, 85, 86, 91, 93) are denied. 

DATED: October 27, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-02844-KJM-EFB Document 99 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 4