Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01400/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01400-5/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In this case, Plaintiffs’ decedent was killed by his cellmate, Anthony Taylor, while housed at 

the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. (Doc. 28 at 3, 4-5) Plaintiffs claim 

that the decedent should not have been housed with Taylor who was a convicted murderer and had 

known proclivities for possessing weapons and for injuring inmates and others. Id. at 4, 7. Likewise, 

they allege Defendants failed to provide adequate supervision of the decedent, due, in part, to prison 

overcrowding. Id. at 5.

Over the last few months, Plaintiffs have sought records of inmate Taylor from Defendants 

who, apparently, have provided the CDCR’s Central File on Taylor. (Doc. 39 at 2-11) Apparently, 

many documents contained in the file demonstrate that Taylor had been involved in numerous acts of 

violence and threats of violence against co-inmates and staff members. Id. The record demonstrates 

also that Taylor was found to meet the criteria for receipt of mental health services and was found to 

be in need of psychotropic medication. Id. at 3-5, 7-10. 

Plaintiffs have also sought the mental health records for Taylor. (Doc. 36 at 1-2) Defendants 

BENITA PALMER, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

SALVADOR VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01400 - AWI - JLT 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF 

MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS

(Doc. 14)

Case 1:13-cv-01400-AWI-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

have refused to produce the documents—not because they object to them being produced—because 

Taylor has not been given proper notice of the request for the records or any opportunity to object to 

their production. Id.

On November 6, 2014, the Court held a mid-discovery status conference at which counsel 

agreed that, “Plaintiff will serve a subpoena duces tecum for production of the mental health records 

for inmate Taylor and will provide Mr. Taylor proper notice through a Notice to Consumer. The Court 

will address any objections filed by Mr. Taylor, as needed. If there are no objections or they are 

overruled, the records will be produced to the Court for an in camera review.” (Doc. 38) However, 

the Court heard nothing further on the matter until January 20, 2015 when the parties filed a joint 

statement, now before the Court. (Doc. 39)

In the joint statement, Plaintiffs recite the information set forth above related to Taylor’s 

Central File and request the Court conduct an in camera review of Taylor’s mental health records. 

(Doc. 39 at 11) Defendants agree that the records are discoverable but note production of the 

documents violates HIPAA and state and federal evidence code sections related to the 

psychotherapist-patient privilege. Id. Defendants have attempted to obtain Taylor’s consent for the 

release of the records but he has not provided it. Id. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs should issue a 

subpoena to the CDCR with a notice to consumer so Taylor can be apprised of the document request 

and of his right to object. Id.

Notably, Plaintiffs fail to explain why the agreement made on November 6, 2014 (Doc. 38) 

was not followed or how the Court could or should compel the production of the documents absent 

affording due process to Taylor. He is entitled to notice and an opportunity to object. Though the 

Court remains willing to conduct the in camera review discussed on November 6, 2015, the parties 

have failed to provide any justification why this should occur before Taylor receives due process. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01400-AWI-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for the in camera review in the current context is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01400-AWI-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/27/15 Page 3 of 3