Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277-7/pdf.json

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

---

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 Although the complaint names Officer Van Halen, it appears that the correct spelling is Van Dalen. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH PUCKETT, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CHIEF OF POLICE DYER, )

OFFICER VAN HALEN, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv0277 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SIGN

AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE RECORDS 

(Document 37)

Defendants Jerry Dyer and Officer Van Dalen (“Defendants”) filed the motion to compel 1

Plaintiff Joseph Puckett (“Plaintiff”) to sign authorizations to release records. The matter was

heard on August 24, 2007, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Erica Camarena appeared on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff did not make an appearance.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2005. He alleges claims based upon a July 2004

incident, and alleges that he continues to suffer from back pain and chronic headaches.

Defendants answered the Complaint on August 4, 2006.

On July 13, 2007, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff to sign

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 53 Filed 08/29/07 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 Defendants concede that the issued subpoena was broad and agree to narrow the subject matter when 2

requesting the information pursuant to Plaintiff’s signed authorization.

2

authorizations for the release of records from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”),

Employment Development Department (“EDD”) and the California Department of Corrections

(“CDC”). After the agencies refused to respond to the subpoenas, Defendants sent Plaintiff two

letters requesting that he sign attached authorizations of release. In a written response, Plaintiff

indicated that he would not sign the authorizations and that the only relevant medical records are

those from July 2004. 

Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 14, 2007, and agreed to sign authorizations to

release records from the EDD and CDC. He continues to oppose disclosure of records from the

SSA. On August 20, 2007, Defendants confirmed that an agreement had been reached as to the

EDD and CDC authorizations and that only the SSA authorization remains at issue.

DISCOVERY AT ISSUE

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,

including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books,

documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of

any discoverable matter.” 

Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to sign authorizations to release records from the

SSA.. On February 6, 2007, Defense counsel issued a subpoena to the SSA seeking “any and all

records pertaining” to Plaintiff. Exhibit A, attached to Declaration of Erica M. Camarena

(“Camarena Dec.”). On February 21, 2007, SSA indicated that it could not release any records 2

without Plaintiff’s written consent. 

Defendants contend that SSA records are necessary because Plaintiff testified at his

deposition that he was not employed and was receiving “SSI” because he is “bipolar and

schizophrenic.” Exhibit E, attached to Camarena Dec. Defendants point out that they are unable

to obtain this information absent Plaintiff’s consent and will incur the expense of obtaining the

information themselves.

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 53 Filed 08/29/07 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

3

 Plaintiff opposes the discovery because he believes that his social security records should

not be at issue. However, given Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the claims he asserts in this

action, it is likely that SSA records contain relevant information. The Court recognizes, though,

that the records may contain private, confidential information. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request and ORDERS Plaintiff to sign the

SSA authorization to release medical records and return it to Defendants’ counsel within ten (10)

days of the date of service of this order. 

The Court further ORDERS that the documents received from the SSA be subject to a

PROTECTIVE ORDER prohibiting disclosure to anyone other than Defendants’ counsel and

experts. Failure to abide by these terms will result in sanctions. 

Additionally, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Defendants SHALL leave funds to cover

Plaintiff’s transportation to the Independent Medical Examinations at the physicians’ offices for

Plaintiff to receive upon completion of the examinations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 53 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 3