Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-21/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN )

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-06556-OWW-SMS

ORDER re: DEFENDANT CITY

OF FRESNO’S MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 214)

On May 2, 2007, Defendant City of Fresno (“City”) filed its

motion for protective order, noticing a hearing date of June 8,

2007 (Doc. 214). On June 5, 2007, the City filed Defendants’

portion of the joint statement regarding discovery dispute;

Defendant City of Fresno’s motion for protective order (Doc. 215),

and appended thereto the City’s proposed protective order re:

psychological testing materials utilized by Harold Seymour, Ph.D.

(Doc. 215-3). On June 6, 2007, at 4:44 p.m., Plaintiff Holly Louen

(“Louen”) filed her opposition to Defendant the City of Fresno’s

motion for protective order (Doc. 217). On June 8, 2007, the City

filed its objection to Plaintiff’s belated opposition to motion for

protective order (Doc. 218). 

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 219 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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

On June 6, 2007, at 1:37 p.m., the Court vacated the hearing

via minute order (Doc. 216) pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). 

There being no apparent opposition and/or participation in the

preparation of the joint statement re: discovery disagreements as

of the due date of the Local Rule 37-251 joint statement, the Court

concluded she would rule upon the motion without oral argument. 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court having considered the

pleadings submitted in this matter, HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

A. Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion was, indeed, late

pursuant to Local Rule 251. And, it does appear from the exhibits

attached to the City’s portion of the joint statement that diligent

efforts were made by City’s counsel to timely obtain Plaintiff’s

portion of the joint statement. It is on that basis that the City

filed its objection to Plaintiff’s belated opposition, requesting

that the Court not consider said opposition or, in the alternative,

set the matter for oral argument and/or an opportunity to respond. 

 The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s

opposition. The City’s objection is noted and is sound. Yet, no

oral argument and/or opportunity to respond will elucidate the

relatively narrow issue presented to the Court. And, Plaintiff’s

opposition did not change the Court’s intended ruling in any event.

The City’s request to disregard Plaintiff’s opposition is

DENIED; and,

B. Having carefully considered the City’s argument, the

Court finds that the proposed protective order the City submitted

for consideration is sufficient to protect Dr. Seymour’s concerns

pursuant to the California Business and Profession Code § 2930,

Title 16 of the Psychology Regulations § 1396.3, as well as 17

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 219 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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

U.S.C. § 107. Were Plaintiff’s consultants/psychologist interns

Lissa H. Parker and/or Keri L. Waterland licensed psychologists,

there would be no dispute. Per Attorney Little’s e-mail to

Attorney Camarena of April 26, 2007, attached as exhibit J to the

City’s 251 statement, “ Ms. Parker an [sic] Ms. Waterland are not

supervised by a licensed mental health practitioner.” Yet, a

review of the curriculum vitaes/resumes of each proposed consultant

(Exhibit H to the City’s Statement) reveals two students in the

Doctor of Philosophy in Forensic Psychology program at Alliant

International University, Fresno, CA, who have a significant enough

education and experience in the field of psychology to support a

conclusion by this Court that each has a great deal to lose if they

were to defy any federal court orders relating to review/use of the

psychological records and information that is the subject of this

motion. 

Lissa H. Parker - Graduated Summa Cum Laude from Cal

State, Stanislaus with a B.A. in psychology and criminal justice;

majored in psychology as early as junior college, receiving her

A.A. degree with honors; appears to have been employed and/or

volunteered for the past seven years or so applying psychology/

behavioral science training; maintains memberships in psychology

and/or psychology/law organizations; has received honors and awards

that befit someone dedicated to the field of psychology; and, is

currently involved with a teaching assistantship in Psychological

Assessment II: Socio-emotional/Personality Assessment. 

Keri L. Waterland - Obtained Bachelor of Science and

Master of Arts degrees in psychology/counseling psychology; has

obviously applied her psychological training over the past ten

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 219 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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

years of her employment; is applying those same skill sets in her

current internships/program development; worked as a teaching

assistant at Alliant International University this past Spring in

Socio-Emotional and Personality Testing, Psychological Assessment

II; and, has current professional memberships in several

psychological associations.

In short, these consultants appear to be dedicated to

their chosen field of psychology be it the forensic versus the

doctorate program or not. For purposes of this discovery dispute,

it is this Court’s FINDING that Dr. Seymour’s records can be safely

disclosed to these two consultants without any ethical concerns or

fear of copyright infringements.

Too, the Court does make use of one proffer from

Plaintiff’s opposition: If, indeed, Plaintiff herself signed a

release providing that there is no confidential psychologistpatient relationship between her and Dr. Seymour, and it is

Plaintiff herself who is seeking the revelation of her testing

records/scores/etc., there should be little fear that they can/will

be misused by her own consultants or any other individual

Plaintiff’s counsel deems appropriate for disclosure, per the

Protective Order issued contemporaneously herewith.

NOTE: Under no circumstances is Plaintiff herself to be

provided a copy of any of the documents Dr. Seymour provides. 

Plaintiff can view them in the company of her counsel and/or the

consultants; but, she may not have her own copy to review and/or

remove from her attorney’s office.

///

//

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 219 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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

/

Conclusion

The Court hereby GRANTS Defendant City’s motion for protective

order which proposed order is signed contemporaneously herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 219 Filed 06/21/07 Page 5 of 5