Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-00671/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-00671-6/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

BINGHAM, McCUTCHEN LLP 

KAREN KENNARD – 141925 

KRISTEN A. PALUMBO - 215857 

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, California 94111-4067 

Telephone: (415) 393-2000 

 

PRISON LAW OFFICE 

DONALD SPECTER – 83925 

General Delivery 

San Quentin, California 94964 

Telephone: (415) 457-9144 

ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO, LLP 

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 

ERNEST GALVAN – 196065 

JANET TUNG – 231682 

155 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone (415) 433-6830 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY VALDIVIA,et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor 

of the State of California; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. Civ. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH 

JOINT STIPULATION TO 

REQUEST TO SUBMIT 

DISPUTED ISSUE TO COURT 

FOR DECISION. 

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1222 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 4
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, No. Civ. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH 

-1-

STIPULATION TO SUBMIT DISPUTED ISSUE 

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

THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE AND 

AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. On January 13, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion and Motion on 

Shortened Time for Order Enforcing the Terms of the Permanent Injunction and 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities, challenging Defendants’ failure to develop and 

implement policies and procedures for the designation of information as confidential that 

are consistent with due process as required by the Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive 

Relief, entered by this Court on March 9, 2004. 

2. On January 24, 2005, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Enforce Terms of Permanent Injunction and a motion for protective order, and on March 7, 

2005, Defendants filed a Supplemental and Superseding Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Enforce Terms of Permanent Injunction, and amended motion for protective order. 

3. On March 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Order Enforcing the Terms of the Permanent Injunction and Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Amended Motion for Protective Order. 

4. On March 14, 2005, after a telephonic conference with the parties, the Court took 

the matter off-calendar pending a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Moulds. 

5. On April 14, 2005, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Moulds for a 

settlement conference. The parties resolved all but one disputed issue at the settlement 

conference. The parties agreed to submit the remaining dispute issue for decision by the 

Court without oral argument unless the Court requests argument. The parties submitted this 

agreement as a Stipulation, which the Court approved on June 1, 2005 (Docket No. 1217). 

6. The remaining disputed issue concerns whether parolees’ counsels’ access to 

certain mental health information should be subject to any conditions of non-disclosure to 

the parolee under the California Patient Access to Health Records Act (“PAHRA”), 

California Health and Safety Code Sections 123100 – 123149.5. 

7. Defendants’ position is that parolees’ counsel should be bound by a protective 

order to withhold mental health information from the parolee if a mental health clinician has 

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1222 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 4
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, No. Civ. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH 

-2-

STIPULATION TO SUBMIT DISPUTED ISSUE 

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

determined under Section 123115(b) of the PAHRA that “there is a substantial risk of 

significant adverse or detrimental consequences to a patient in seeing or receiving a copy of 

mental health records requested by the patient.” 

8. Plaintiffs’ position is that due process and the Permanent Injunction require that 

parolees’ counsel have access to parole office mental health records, which are often 

relevant to the alleged parole violations or to the appropriateness of a return to custody. 

Restricting counsel from discussing this information with clients unnecessarily impedes 

counsels’ ability to use the information to defend the client. As a matter of California law, 

Section 123115 does not apply to disclosures to a person’s attorney, which are governed by 

separate statutes, including Section 1158 of the California Evidence Code. In addition, 

California courts have already determined that statutory and public policy limitations on 

disclosure of one’s own records do not apply in a proceeding where one’s liberty is at issue. 

9. The arguments regarding this issue have been fully briefed. For the convenience 

of the Court, the parties submit with this Stipulation excerpts of the briefing on this issue. 

The excerpts are organized as follows: 

Exhibit 1: Plaintiffs’ Motion, pages 5-12 (Docket No. 1146, 1/13/05). 

Exhibit 2: Decl. of Ernest Galvan, Exhibits I & K (Docket No. 1147, 1/13/05). 

Exhibit 3: Excerpt of Defs.’ Supplemental & Superceding Opposition, pages 1-7 

(Docket No. 1162, 3/7/05). 

Exhibit 4: Decl. of Benjamin Rice In Opposition, Exhibits B, D (Docket No. 

1163, 3/7/05). 

Exhibit 5: Decl. of Dr. Jordan (Exhibit E to Decl. of Rice, Docket No. 1163.) 

Exhibit 6: Excerpt of Plaintiffs’ Reply, pages 4-10, 18-22 (Docket No. 1166, 

3/14/05). 

Exhibit 7: Decl. of Dr. Kupers (Docket No. 1169, 3/14/05). 

Exhibit 8: Excerpt of Decl. of Janet Tung In Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply, Exhibit 

K (Docket No. 1168, 3/14/05). 

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1222 Filed 07/14/05 Page 3 of 4
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, No. Civ. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH 

-3-

STIPULATION TO SUBMIT DISPUTED ISSUE 

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

10. The parties jointly request that the Court deem Plaintiffs’ motion submitted on the 

written arguments and evidence attached to this Stipulation, and that Court issue an order 

declaring whether under the Permanent Injunction, parolees’ counsel should receive access 

to information in their client’s parole field files without limitations on disclosing the 

information to the parolee based on perceived risk of harm to the parolee’s mental health 

under California Health & Safety Code § 123115(b). 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: July 11, 2005 BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General 

of the State of California, 

ROBERT R. ANDERSON, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, 

FRANCES T. GRUNDER, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, 

STEPHEN P. AQUISTO, Supervising Deputy 

Attorney General 

By [s] Benjamin T. Rice 

Benjamin T. Rice, 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: July 11, 2005 ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO, LLP 

By [s] Ernest Galvan 

Ernest Galvan, 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

THE MATTER STANDS SUBMITTED. 

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

Hon. LAWRENCE K. KARLTON 

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1222 Filed 07/14/05 Page 4 of 4