Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00210/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00210-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA GREENSPAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13cv210-LAB (DHB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

WITH FEDERAL SUBPOENA 

[ECF No. 39]

On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff Donna Greenspan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to

Compel Compliance with Federal Subpoena Issued to Rady Children’s Chadwick Center for

Children and Families. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. For the following

reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

I. DISCUSSION

This is a civil rights lawsuit arising out of the removal of Plaintiff’s child, A.G., from

Plaintiff’s home. On February 22, 2012, A.G. was placed into the care of Polinsky

Children’s Center (“Polinsky”). Plaintiff alleges that A.G. was sexually molested by an

older child while at Polinsky. (ECF No. 1.) On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a formal

police report regarding the molestation. Thereafter, a forensic examination and interview 

of A.G. took place at Rady Children’s Chadwick Center for Children and Families 

(“Chadwick Center”).

13cv210-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00210-JLB Document 44 Filed 01/09/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff initially sought release of the Chadwick Center records by filing a Request

for Disclosure of Juvenile Records in the Juvenile Court for the County of San Diego. On

November 1, 2013, the Juvenile Court determined that it did not have authority over the

Chadwick Center records because the records were not part of the juvenile case file, as

defined by Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(e). Therefore, Plaintiff served a subpoena for

production of the records on Chadwick Center. On November 6, 2013, Chadwick Center

responded to the subpoena by letter stating Plaintiff’s “request for medical records” had been

denied because “[t]he information is not available to you for inspection as permitted by State

and/or Federal law(s).” (ECF No. 39-4 at 2.) Chadwick Center did not cite any specific rule,

statute, or privilege for its basis of the denial. Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempts to meet and

confer with Chadwick Center to informally resolve the issue were unsuccessful. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff brought the instant motion to compel. 

Generally, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that

is relevant to any party’s claim or defense – including the existence, description, nature,

custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity

and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Under Rule 45, any party may serve a subpoena commanding a third party to produce

documents. Fed. R. Civ. P 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). A person commanded to produce documents

may serve a written objection to the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P 45(d)(2)(B). If the

commanded person withholds subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged, the

person must (1) expressly make the claim, and (2) describe the nature of the withheld

documents in a manner that will enable the parties to assess the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(e)(2)(A). The serving party may, at any time, on notice to the commanded person, move

the court for an order compelling production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(I).

Here, the Court finds the subpoenaed Chadwick Center records are clearly relevant to

Plaintiff’s case. As for Chadwick Center’s objection to the subpoena, the Court notes

Chadwick Center failed to cite any specific legal authority to support its position. To the

extent Chadwick Center’s refusal to comply with the subpoena is based on a claim of

privilege, it has not provided a proper objection under Rule 45. Therefore, the Court finds

2 13cv210-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00210-JLB Document 44 Filed 01/09/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

Chadwick Center’s objection to the subpoena is baseless. Furthermore, neither Chadwick

Center, nor any other party to this suit, have filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. The

Court construes that failure as a consent to the motion being granted. See Civil LR 7(f)(3)(c)

(providing the failure to file an opposition “may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion or other request for ruling by the court”). 

The Juvenile Court has determined the Chadwick Center records were not part of the

juvenile case file within the meaning of Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §827(e), and therefore, the

court lacked authority to order them disclosed. As a result, Plaintiff properly sought the

records via a Rule 45 subpoena. The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to the Chadwick Center

records under Cal. Heath & Safe Code § 123110. See also Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of

Cos., 52 Cal.App.4th 813, 815 (1997). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. 

II. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with

Federal Subpoena Issued to Rady Children’s Chadwick Center for Children and Families is

GRANTED. Rady Children’s Chadwick Center for Children and Families shall comply

with the November 4, 2013 Subpoena to Produce Documents within 14 days of the date of

this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 9, 2014

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

3 13cv210-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00210-JLB Document 44 Filed 01/09/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3