Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02499/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02499-14/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, JAMES 

ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR., and TERRI 

MAYFIELD, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IVAN OROZCO, SHERIFF SCOTT 

JONES, JAMES LEWIS, RICK 

PATTISON, COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO, UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH 

SYSTEM, DR. GREGORY SOKOLOV, 

DR. ROBERT HALES, and Does 1-5, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-02499 JAM AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs move to compel further discovery responses from the University of California 

Davis Health System and related defendants (collectively “UCD”). The motion, ECF No. 100, 

came on for hearing on June 29, 2016. Lori Rifkin appeared for plaintiffs, and Robert F. Tyler 

appeared for UCD. For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the motion in part and 

deny it in part. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield (“Joshua Mayfield”) attempted suicide in the Sacramento 

County Jail, where he was a pre-trial detainee, and survived with quadriplegia and cognitive 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 8
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

impairments. He and his wife and son sue the County and various jail correctional staff, and 

UCD Health Services and related jail psychiatric staff, on grounds including failure to protect and 

failure to provide medical care. 

 Pursuant the Pretrial Scheduling Order now in place, ECF No. 41, discovery closes on 

October 14, 2016. 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

 Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to their First and Third Sets of Requests for 

Production of Documents and First and Third Sets of Interrogatories. Additionally, plaintiffs seek 

(1) a more detailed privilege log; (2) production of all responsive documents whether 

“indigenous” or not; (3) production of documents for the entire temporal period requested; (4) 

clarification as to the categorical identify of documents withheld as “inapplicable”; and (5) 

augmented, complete answers to interrogatories and production of related documents withheld by 

UCD on HIPAA grounds. ECF Nos. 100, 107 at 9. 

STANDARDS 

The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is broad. Discovery may be obtained as 

to “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 . . . and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. (“Rule”) 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact 

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

 Where a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or fails to 

produce documents requested under Rule 34, the party seeking discovery may move for 

compelled disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden 

of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). The party 

opposing discovery then has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and 

the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” See Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 8
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

1390794 at * 1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42339 at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2009). The party opposing 

discovery is “required to carry a heavy burden of showing” why discovery should be denied. 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). 

 Privileges are to be “strictly construed” because they “impede full and free discovery of 

the truth.” Eureka Financial Corp. v. Hartford Acc. and Indemnity Co., 136 F.R.D. 179, 183 

(E.D. Cal. 1991). The Supreme Court has long noted that privileges are disfavored. Jaffee v. 

Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9 (1996). “The party asserting an evidentiary privilege has the burden to 

demonstrate that the privilege applies to the information in question.” Tornay v. United States, 

840 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 Where, as here, a case presents federal claims and pendent state law claims, the federal 

law of privilege applies. Agster v. Maricopa Cty., 422 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 2005). When a 

party withholds otherwise discoverable information by claiming that it is privileged, the party 

must make the claim expressly and describe the nature of the documents, communications, or 

things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged 

or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(5). Generalized or boiler-plate assertions of privilege are inadequate. Burlington N. & 

Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. 

denied, 546 U.S. 939 (2005). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Privilege Issues 

On June 15, 2016, defendants belatedly produced a privilege log in relation to the 

discovery requests at issue. Defendants asserted HIPAA protections and state confidentiality law 

as to inmate medical information; California Evidence Code §§ 1156-1157 as to minutes of 

Quality Improvement Committee meetings; and attorney/client privilege as to various 

communications. 

A. HIPAA and Medical Privacy Objections 

Defendants object to providing information regarding another inmate’s suicide attempt at 

the Sacramento County Jail on the same day and in the same manner as plaintiff Joshua 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 8
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 

4

Mayfield’s. Defendants have also redacted the names and identifying information of other 

inmates from production of numerous documents, citing HIPAA and state privacy law. On the 

same grounds, they object to Interrogatories seeking further information about incidents 

identified, and inmates named, in the “Self-Inflicted Injury Logs” they have produced.1 

State confidentiality law does not apply here. See Kelley v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 

653, 655-656 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (“State privilege doctrine, whether derived from statutes or court 

decisions, is not binding on federal courts in these kinds of cases.”). Federal regulations govern 

the disclosure of information protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA). 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e) provides that protected health information 

may under certain circumstances be produced in connection with judicial proceedings. Such 

documents may be produced in response to a discovery request if either the individual whose 

information has been requested has been given notice of the request or reasonable efforts have 

been made by the requesting party to secure a “qualified protective order.” § 164.512(c)(1)(i)-

(ii). A qualified protective order is one that “(A) [p]rohibits the parties from using or disclosing 

the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which 

such information was requested; and (B) [r]equires the return to the covered entity or destruction 

of the protected health information including all copies made) at the end of the litigation[...].2

 

§ 164.512(c)(1)(iv); see also Allen v. Woodford, 2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11002 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 

2007) (45 CFR § 164.512(e) permits the disclosure of third-party medical records covered by 

HIPPA so long as there is a satisfactory protective order in place); Steshenko v. McKay, 2012 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58043 *9 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2013). 

//// 

//// 

 

1

 Defendants seek return of the logs for redaction, contending that they were inadvertently 

disclosed in violation of HIPAA. To the extent the logs are medical records, they are nonetheless 

subject to disclosure under protective order for the same reasons that plaintiff’s motion to compel 

is here granted regarding HIPAA-protected medical information. However, the logs do not 

appear to be medical records. 

2

 A protective order of this scope should allay defendants’ fear that mere production places the 

protected health information of third-party inmates “in the public domain.” 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 8
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 

5

Accordingly, defendants’ assertions of HIPAA protection are overruled. Production of 

documents and responses to interrogatories will be ordered subject to a HIPAA- compliant 

protective order. 

B. California Evidence Code §§ 1156-1157 

Defendants assert Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1156-1157, which establishes a state law privilege 

for peer review of professional medical practices, to support redaction of Quality Improvement 

Committee Meeting Minutes. However, federal courts do not recognize this privilege. Allen, 

2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11002 at *3 (citing Agster, 422 F.3d at 838-839 (expressly addressing 

access to medical mortality review in the case of a prisoner who died in custody)). 

Defendants’ assertion of Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1156-1157 is overruled, and defendants will 

be ordered to produce unredacted versions of responsive documents, subject to protective order. 

C. Attorney-Client Privilege 

As indicated above, the party asserting attorney-client privilege has the burden of proving 

that the privilege applies to a given set of documents or communications. “[T]he party asserting 

the privilege must make a prima facie showing that the privilege protects the information the 

party intends to withhold.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 

1992) (citations and footnotes omitted). To meet this burden, the objecting party may not rely 

upon “generalized, boilerplate objection[s].” Burlington Ry., 408 F.3d at 1147. Rather, the 

objecting party must produce a privilege log that “describe[s] the nature of the documents” being 

withheld with enough information to “enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(5)(A)(ii). 

Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ privilege log is inadequate, in that it fails to provide the 

information required by Rule 26(b)(5)(A). The court agrees. Page after page of the privilege log 

provides only the date and document type (e.g., email or letter), and identifies authors and 

recipient only as “attorney” or “client.” See, e.g., ECF No. 107-1 at 8-14. No information is 

provided that enables plaintiffs or the court to assess the claim of privilege, which turns on 

whether the particular communication between an attorney and a client was made in confidence 

and for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. See generally, Admiral Ins. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/01/16 Page 5 of 8
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 

6

881 F.2d 1486, 1492 (9th Cir.1989) (discussing scope of the privilege). 

When, as here, a large volume of documents or electronically-stored information is at 

issue, a document-by-document log may be unduly burdensome and broad categorical 

descriptions may suffice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee’s Notes to 1993 

Amendments; see also Durkin v. Shields (In re Imperial Corp. of Am.), 174 F.R.D. 475, 479 

(S.D. Cal. 1997). Because the privilege log here does not contain any description of the nature or 

general subject matter of the communications, even in categorical terms, it fails to comport with 

Rule 26(b)(5) and must be supplemented.3 

II. Issues Specific To Request For Production No. 51 

A. “Indigenous” Documents 

Plaintiffs’ Request For Production (“RFP”) No. 51, First Set of Requests For Production, 

sought policies and procedures related to the continuity of care between Jail Psychiatric Services 

(“JPS”), operated by defendants, and Napa State Hospital. Defendants’ responsive production 

was limited to those policies and procedures “indigenous” to JPS, excluding policies and 

procedures of Napa State Hospital.4 To the extent that defendants actually do not possess the 

policies and procedures of the state hospital,5 the response that the documents are not in the 

custody and control of the responding defendants is adequate. Defendants’ further reference to 

“indigenous” documents, however, created avoidable confusion by implying that defendants had 

no duty to produce, and were withholding, documents that they did possess but had not created. 

Such a position would be contrary to the Federal Rules and would be overruled by this court. 

 

3

 Plaintiffs also object to defendants’ use of “POD” numbers to refer to certain documents in the 

privilege log. Defendants have now explained what the term means, and the court declines to 

order further action in this regard. 

4

 Defendants’ response also indicates the possibility that RFP No. 51 seeks the discharge records 

of individual inmates other than plaintiff Mayfield upon their transfer to Sacramento County Jail. 

RFP No. 51 by its terms seeks policies, procedures, protocols and practices, not individual patient 

discharge records. Other discovery requests specifically seek information regarding other 

inmates who have received psychiatric services, committed acts of self-harm in custody, etc., and 

the court has already ruled that responses to such requests must be unredacted but subject to a 

strict protective order. The court does not order wholesale production of other inmates’ discharge 

instructions pursuant to RFP No. 51. 

5

 Defendants’ response to the RFP did so state. 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/01/16 Page 6 of 8
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 

7

However, counsel for defendants has now clarified that all extant responsive documents in 

defendants’ possession were in fact produced. ECF No. 107 at 24. Accordingly, no further 

production will be ordered in this regard. Defendants are cautioned, however, that their ongoing 

duty to supplement encompasses documents that are not “indigenous” to JPS. 

B. Temporal Scope 

RFP No. 51 sought policies and procedures in effect from 2005 to the present. Defendants 

produced only those documents that were in effect during the period of plaintiff Mayfield’s 

incarceration, 2011 through 2013. Defendants object to further production on grounds that the 

request is overbroad as to dates preceding and post-dating plaintiff’s incarceration. 

Plaintiffs have articulated a theory of relevance for the documents they seek. Plaintiffs 

seek to develop “pattern and practice” information, and evidence that may relate to their negligent 

supervision and failure to train claims. The period for which documents are requested is not 

overbroad or disproportionate in this context. Defendants will, therefore, be required to 

supplement their production with documents covering the time period 2005 to the present. See 

Lopez v. Florez, 2013 WL 1151948 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2013). 

III. Other Issues 

A. Documents Withheld As “Inapplicable” 

Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses where defendants stated only that an RFP was 

“inapplicable.” E.g., Defendants’ Responses to RFP Nos. 9, 12, 13 and 102. Defendants have 

agreed to provide supplemental responses clarifying their position. ECF No. 107 at 28. They will 

be ordered to do so. 

B. Redactions To Plaintiff’s Own Medical Records 

Defendants produced to plaintiffs copies of Joshua Mayfield’s own jail medical records 

that were redacted in various ways. To the extent that defendants rely on any federal or state 

statutory obligations to protect patient medical information, disclosure pursuant to protective 

order is ordered for the reasons previously explained. To the extent that defendants contend the 

redacted information is not relevant, or constitutes meta-data not requested in discovery, the 

objections are overruled. All parties to this lawsuit plainly require access to unredacted copies of 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/01/16 Page 7 of 8
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 

8

plaintiff’s own records, and defendants will be ordered to produce them. 

IV. Sanctions 

Plaintiffs seek fees and costs for the bringing of this motion. The court does not find 

sanctions warranted at this time. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s Motion To Compel, ECF. No. 100, is 

GRANTED in part as follows, and is in all other respects DENIED: 

1. Discovery withheld or redacted by the UCD defendants pursuant to HIPAA, 

and/or on medical privacy grounds, shall be produced in unredacted form within 

14 days of this court’s approval of a Protective Order; 

2. Discovery withheld or redacted pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code § § 1156-1157 shall 

be produced in unredacted form within 14 days of this order; 

3. Defendants shall, within 30 days of this order, provide a privilege log in 

conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), as explained herein, as to all assertions 

of attorney/client privilege; 

4. Defendants shall, within 30 days of this order, augment their response to RFP No. 

51 to include documents for the entire time period requested; 

5. Defendants shall, within 14 days of this order if they have not already done so, 

supplement or clarify their responses to RFP Nos. 9, 12,13, 102, and any other 

responses which merely state “inapplicable;” 

6. Defendants shall, within 14 days of this court’s approval of a Protective Order, 

produce to plaintiffs an unredacted copy of plaintiff Joshua Mayfield’s medical 

records. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 1, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 117 Filed 07/01/16 Page 8 of 8