Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01199/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01199-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

Plaintiff Avery Hypolite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to United States magistrate judge jurisdiction on 

August 22, 2014. (ECF No. 7.) Defendant has not consented or declined magistrate judge 

jurisdiction; therefore, this action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide a further 

response to the request for production of documents and to produce responsive documents, filed July 

19, 2016. 

I.

BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding against Defendant R. Zamora for use of excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment. 

AVERY HYPOLITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. ZAMORA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE A RESPONSE AND PRODUCE 

DOCUMENTS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM 

THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

[ECF No. 43]

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 7
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

On September 11, 2015, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 20.) On 

September 14, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 21.) 

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 38.) 

On June 21, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of fourteen days to respond to 

Defendant’s outstanding discovery requests, and extended the deadline for filing motions to compel to 

July 19, 2016. (ECF Nos. 36, 41.) 

As previously stated, on July 19, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 43.) 

On August 17, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery as untimely. 

(ECF No. 46.) 

On August 25, 2016, the Court received Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel 

filed on July 19, 2016. (ECF No. 47.) Defendant previously received Plaintiff’s opposition on August 

8, 2016, and filed a reply on August 15, 2016. (ECF No. 45.) Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to 

compel, filed July 19, 2016, is deemed submitted for review without oral argument. Local Rule 

230(l). 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of 

confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would 

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to 

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 21, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &4. Further, where 

otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or 

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in 

determining whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. 

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and 

language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of 

Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of 

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right of privacy 

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 7
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

that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 

WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect discoverable 

information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. 

Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) 

(issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the safety and 

security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. 

Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information asserted to 

risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No. 

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring 

defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective order). 

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The 

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of 

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to 

the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 

controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance 

of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel 

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV 

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at 

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis 

v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). 

This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the 

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why 

the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4. 

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/20/16 Page 3 of 7
4

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

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these 

procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, the 

Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 

606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 

2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

III.

DISCUSSION

A plaintiff who establishes liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is entitled to recover compensatory 

damages for the injuries suffered as a result of the constitutional violation, including for economic 

harm, pain and suffering and mental and emotional distress. Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384, 

1389 (9th Cir. 1989). 

A party enjoys privacy rights in his medical records in general. See Bertram v. Sizelove, No. 

1:10-cv-00583-AWI-GBC (PC), 2012 WL 273083, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012). However, a party 

may waive these privacy rights if the party puts their contents at issue in a case. Smith v. Solano 

Cnty., No. 2:11-cv-00142 MCE EFB P, 2012 WL 3727332, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2012). Any 

waiver, however, is “limited to the private information that is relevant to the lawsuit.” Enwere v. 

Terman Associates, L.P., No. C 07-1239 JF (PVT), 2008 WL 5146617, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008) 

(citation omitted). Communications between a patient and medical doctors to diagnose mental health 

issues and the records reflecting the patient’s mental health issues are privileged. The psychotherapy 

privilege is waived in only limited circumstances, such as where the plaintiff puts these 

communications directly at issue by alleging more than “garden variety” emotional distress. 

Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 636 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

Plaintiff seeks relief against Defendant Zamora for excessive force utilized on November 4, 

2012, and in the prayer for relief portion of his complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for 

emotional and mental stress. (1st Amd. Compl. at 3, ECF No. 10.) 

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/20/16 Page 4 of 7
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

27

28

On March 18, 2016, Defendant served Plaintiff with the following request for production of 

documents:

REQUEST NO. 2:

All records which reflect any treatment or medications that you claim you received from any 

psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist or other provider for the alleged emotional distress that you 

claim you suffered during the incidents that occurred on November 4, 2012 as alleged in your 

COMPLAINT.

REQUEST NO. 4:

All psychological records which reflect any treatment and/or medications that you received for 

any psychological conditions during the period from 2010 through the present.

(Feher Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 

Plaintiff did not serve a response to the request for production of documents, and did not 

produce responsive documents. Defendant requested the same documents in the notice of deposition 

that was served on Plaintiff. (Id., Exs A & B.) Plaintiff served responses dated June 7, 2016, to the 

above-mentioned discovery requests. (Feher Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. C.) As to Requests Numbers 2 and 4, 

Plaintiff responded:

2. “On May 11, 2016 at the deposition, I handed you papers written by my psychologist 

Dr. Roth Ph.D. about my emotional distress.”

4. “My psychological file will not be given to you because that is client/patient 

confidential information.”

(Id.) At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that the only records of psychological treatment that he 

received for the emotional distress arising out of the incident is based on two pages that he provided at 

his deposition. (Pl.’s Dep. at 28:15-29:25.) However, Plaintiff acknowledged during his deposition 

that he had been receiving psychological treatment in prison since about 2009 and he refused to 

produce those records because they are personal. (Pl.’s Dep. at 26:3-10; 33:12-21; 204.) 

Defendant argues that he has the right to explore the details of the prior and subsequent mental 

health treatment that Plaintiff received in order to determine whether his other conditions are the cause 

of, or a contributing factor to, his claimed symptoms allegedly suffered after the incident. 

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/20/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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 opposition, Plaintiff contends Defendant’s motion does not comply with the procedural rules 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local rules governing discovery motions. However, 

Plaintiff fails to explain how Defendant’s motion in not in compliance with the applicable rules. 

Plaintiff then contends that he did not refuse to provide records, he simply cannot provide the 

information Defendant requested. Plaintiff then argues that his psychological records are private and 

irrelevant to the present action. Finally, Plaintiff argues the he has produced some records in response 

to Defendant’s request for production of documents. 

Defendant is correct. Whether such information is discoverable and admissible at trial are two 

separate issues. The only issue at this time is whether Plaintiff’s mental health records are 

discoverable. In this instance, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, monetary damages against Defendant for 

causing him to suffer emotional and mental stress. Thus, Plaintiff has placed his mental condition at 

issue and thereby waived his privacy rights with respect to his mental health records. Plaintiff 

responded to the discovery requests and testified at his deposition that he refuses to produce his mental 

health records based on his belief that such information is confidential. Defendant is entitled to 

discovery of these records to the extent they are relevant to this claim, and Defendant’s motion to 

compel Plaintiff to produce all responsive records shall be granted. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall provide a 

further response to Defendant’s request for production of documents and produce all 

responsive records; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/20/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including 

dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/20/16 Page 7 of 7