Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01802/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01802-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZARA SEDAGHATPOUR,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 07-1802 WHA (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

BACKGROUND

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff alleges unreasonable seizure,

excessive force, and racial and national origin discrimination related to a traffic stop. Plaintiff also

brings state law causes of action, including intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On November 15, 2007, Defendants served five subpoenas on medical professionals who

provided Plaintiff with mental health services. Plaintiff seeks to quash or significantly narrow the

scope of four of the subpoenas, arguing that any treatment she received from these professionals is

unrelated to the claims at issue in this case.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

Case 3:07-cv-01802-WHA Document 64 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 3
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

claim or defense of any party .... For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter

relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The party objecting to the discovery bears the burden

of showing that it should not be allowed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 45, any party may serve a subpoena

commanding a non-party to give testimony or produce documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C). The

subpoena nonetheless is subject to the relevance provisions of FRCP 26(b)(1). A party that is not

the recipient of the subpoena has standing to challenge the subpoena “only where its challenge

asserts that the information is privileged or protected to itself.” Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil

Co., Inc., 157 F.R.D. 691, 695 (D.Nev.1994). Upon a timely motion, a court shall quash or modify a

subpoena if it finds that the subpoena “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and

no exception or waiver applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii).

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff raises two arguments: relevancy and her right to privacy. However, if

Plaintiff has put her health or mental condition at issue in this lawsuit, then the Court would be

inclined to permit Defendants to conduct discovery of her relevant medical records. The privacy

interest in one's confidential medical records is conditional and a limited impairment of the right

may be allowed if properly justified. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 618 (N.D. Cal.1995). 

In making this determination, the Court shall balance Plaintiff's privacy rights against Defendants'

need for the information. 

Defendants' subpoenas seek "any and all documents regarding plaintiff Zara Sedaghatpour." 

(Doc. 61, Ex. A.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff has a history of extensive mental health treatment

and that evidence of her mental state is relevant to her credibility and the reasonableness of the

officer's conduct at the scene. The Court agrees. Plaintiff's operative complaint includes a claim for

relief for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. She asserts that the officer's actions "were

done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and

Case 3:07-cv-01802-WHA Document 64 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

physical distress." (Doc. #30, ¶96.) She claims damages on the grounds that she "has suffered and

continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish." (Doc. #30, ¶ 99.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has clearly put her mental condition at issue and any right to privacy is

outweighed by Defendants' right to evaluate what extent Plaintiff's emotional distress claims and

mental anguish are attributable to prior issues, and which are attributable to the present incident. 

Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to quash is DENIED.

However, the Court does find that Defendants' subpoenas are overbroad as written. Rather

than produce any and all documents regarding Plaintiff, the third parties need only respond as to any

and all documents related to treatment for Plaintiff's mental health and any physical condition

related to her mental health symptoms. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01802-WHA Document 64 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 3