Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01113/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01113-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA STAFFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-1113 EDL

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUEST TO FILE CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND

REFERRING CASE FOR AN

EMERGENCY SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE

I. Introduction

On June 6, 2006, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment came on for hearing. The

Court has issued an order granting in part Plaintiff Donna Stafford’s motion and denying Defendant

Social Security Administration’s motion. See Docket No. 108. This Order separately addresses

Defendant’s evidentiary objections and Defendant’s motion to file certain documents under seal, and

refers the parties to a settlement conference to occur at the earliest convenience of the magistrate

judge. 

II. Evidentiary Objections

The Court overrules the objections that Defendant made to the following paragraphs of

Plaintiff’s Declaration: 11, 62, 63, 64, 73, 75. The Court sustains the objections that Defendant

made to the following paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Declaration: 23, 49 (Plaintiff concedes this

objection), 51, and 91 (last sentence only).

The Court also sustains Defendant’s objection to the declaration of Rodney Melkonoff. Mr.

Melkonoff essentially contradicts the SSA’s conclusion that Plaintiff suffered from a particular

Case 3:05-cv-01113-EDL Document 109 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

mental illness. However, this evidence does not impact any of the elements of Plaintiff’s Privacy

Act claim. At most, an erroneous diagnosis would be relevant for the purpose of calculating the

extent of Plaintiff’s emotional distress and damages necessary to compensate that distress. 

However, because there is a triable issue of fact on causation, and the Court has not reached the

issue whether emotional distress damages are available in a Privacy Act case, the Melkonoff

Declaration is not relevant and is stricken.

The Court overrules Defendant’s first objection to the deposition testimony of Elizabeth

Berg but sustains Defendant’s objection to the opinions Ms. Berg stated at lines 11 and 17 of page

15 of her deposition.

III. Motion to Seal

Defendant lodged eight exhibits under seal. See Lee Decl., Exs. I-P. Although Defendant

does not believe that the documents are confidential at this point in the litigation, it filed the

documents under seal because Plaintiff had designated them as confidential. Plaintiff filed a

declaration supporting the confidential designation of the documents pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. 

See Docket No. 107. Out of concern for the privacy of Plaintiff’s daughter, whom these documents

concern and who was a minor at the time these events occurred, the Court grants the motion to file

Exhibits I-P under seal.

IV. Settlement Conference

On April 7, 2006, the parties attended an unsuccessful mediation session, and the mediator

noted that no follow-up was contemplated. Now that the parties have additional guidance from the

Court, the Court refers the parties to a Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge to take place,

if possible, by August 4, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2006 _________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01113-EDL Document 109 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2