Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01217/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01217-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM S., 

Plaintiff,

v.

LASSEN COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

 No. Civ.S-05-1217 DFL CMK

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

Plaintiff William S. (“William”) alleges that Lassen

County (“County”) and numerous individual defendants improperly

disclosed his medical condition. William alleges that defendants

twice violated his privacy rights: first, by placing his name and

medical condition on a list posted in the public health

department and, second, by posting his resulting claim against

the County on the internet. The County moves for summary

judgment on the second alleged disclosure, arguing that William

had no reasonable expectation of privacy in information he

voluntarily disclosed in the claim. 

//// 

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 64 Filed 11/22/06 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

 William testified under oath that he was aware before the 1

submission of his claim that the Board posted claim forms online. 

See William Depo., July 14, 2006, 244:12-247:10. He later

contradicted the deposition testimony in a declaration, stating

that he was unaware that the Board posted online the substance of

claims. See William Decl. ¶ 9. “The general rule in the Ninth

Circuit is that a party cannot create an issue of fact by an

affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony.” Kennedy

v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir. 1991). The

court, therefore, disregards William’s later statement. 

2

I.

In early 2004, Lassen County hired William as a social

worker. Second Amended Complaint (SAC) ¶ 12. William alleges

that on August 16, 2004 he found his name and medical condition

posted on a list in the Lassen County Department of Social

Services. Id. ¶ 13. He filed a claim for damages with the 

Board of Supervisors (“the Board”), as required by Cal. Gov’t

Code §§ 945 et seq. SAC § 16. William’s February 2, 2006 claim

contained a specific description of his medical condition. 

Motion for Summary Judgement (“Mot.”), 2. As was the practice at

the time, the Board posted William’s claim form on the internet

by linking it to the Board’s online agenda for the meeting in

which it planned to address the claim. Id. at 5-6. William

previously had read other claim forms posted on the Board’s

website in this manner so that he was on notice that the claim

would be treated as a public document. Id. at 6. He made no 1

request that the claim be treated confidentially; nor did he

attempt to make any other arrangement that would keep private the

particular details of his medical condition.

In this case, one of William’s claims is that the Board

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 64 Filed 11/22/06 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

3

violated his right to privacy by disclosing his medical condition

on the internet. Lassen County moves for summary judgment on the

limited issue of whether the Board’s posting of the claim

violated any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment or the

California Constitution. 

II.

To demonstrate a privacy violation under the California

Constitution, plaintiff must show: “(1) a legally protected

privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the

circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a

serious invasion of privacy.” Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief

Ass’n, 98 Cal. App. 4th 1288, 1300 (2002).

William possesses a legally protected privacy interest in

information concerning his medical condition. See NormanBloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260, 1270-71

(9th Cir. 1998). However, William’s voluntary disclosure of his

medical condition in the body of his claim eliminates any

reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of that claim. 

William does not assert that he expected the claim to be

maintained under seal. “Historically, courts have recognized a

‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City &

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). 

Rather, he asserts that he did not expect that the document would

be placed on the internet where anyone could view it without

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 64 Filed 11/22/06 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

 William also alleges that Lassen County violated the 2

Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) by disclosing

his condition without a signed release. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 56 et

seq. The CMIA, however, applies only to the release of

information by health care providers. Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal.

App. 4th 402, 425 (1996). The Board is not a health care

provider and is beyond the CMIA’s scope. See Cal. Civ. Code

§ 56.05(j) (definition of “provider of health care”). 

4

traveling to the County’s offices. This is a distinction without

a difference. In the modern era any publicly available document

may find its way to the internet and it is not reasonable for a

plaintiff to assume that an organizational defendant will keep

its files off of the internet. Moreover, here William actually

knew that the claim form would be placed on the internet because

he had seen that the County linked such agenda items to the

underlying claim. In these circumstances, William had no

reasonable expectation of privacy in a document already available

to the public. See Cal. Gov. Code § 6253 (2002) (placing 2

California public records generally open to inspection); William

Depo., July 14, 2006, 244:12-247:10 (acknowledging that he knew

that the Board previously had posted claim forms online). 

William similarly fails to demonstrate a privacy violation

under the United States Constitution. The disclosure of his

medical condition could implicate a constitutional right to

informational privacy. See Norman-Bloodsaw, 135 F.3d at 1269-70

(recognizing federal Constitutional right to privacy of medical

information); see also Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977)

(discussing generally right to informational privacy). Here,

however, William waived the confidentiality of his medical

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 64 Filed 11/22/06 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

5

condition by making a public disclosure of that very condition.

William argues that he was caught in a “catch-22,” in which

he was forced to disclose his condition to state an adequate

claim. The claim form requested a description of “the particular

act or omission and circumstances you believe caused injury

and/or damage.” However, California Government Code § 910(d),

governing claims such as William’s against government entities,

requires only “[a] general description of the indebtedness,

obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be

known at the time of presentation of the claim.” The claim “must

fairly describe what that entity is alleged to have done,” but

“need not conform to pleading standards.” Shoemaker v. Myers, 2

Cal. App. 4th 1407, 1426 (1992). Under this pleading standard,

William did not need to allege the specific medical information

disclosed or the precise statute violated by defendants to state

an adequate claim.

III.

For these reasons, the court GRANTS the motion for partial

summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 11/22/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01217-JKS-CMK Document 64 Filed 11/22/06 Page 5 of 5