Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-139/pdf.json

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

---

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

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER RE: ADVISORY

BOARD’S ACCESS TO

DOCUMENTS

In the course of fulfilling its duties to this Court, the Advisory Board may, from time

to time, request documents, including death reviews and reports regarding clinical

misconduct, from the Receiver. The Receiver shall comply with such requests. However,

any patient-identifying information shall be redacted from copies of documents provided to

the Board, and the names of reviewing physicians shall be redacted from any peer review

documents provided to the Board. Such redactions will serve to protect inmate-patient

privacy and to promote candor in peer review communications.

In its order appointing the Advisory Board, this Court provided that, “[i]n performing

their duties consistent with this order, all members of the Advisory Board shall have the

status of officers and agents of this Court and, accordingly, shall be afforded the same

immunities that vest with this Court.” June 6, 2008 Order Appointing Advisory Board at 1. 

These immunities extend to protect the Advisory Board from discovery requests, including

any requests to produce documents the Board obtains from the Receiver or this Court.

The Court further provided in the appointment order that “[a]ll proceedings of the

Advisory Board and communications between the Advisory Board and the Court shall be

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1369 Filed 08/07/08 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

confidential and privileged.” Id. at 2. The Court now makes explicit that communications

between the Advisory Board and the Receiver or his staff shall likewise be confidential and

privileged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/07/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1369 Filed 08/07/08 Page 2 of 2