Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03577/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03577-5/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EVELYN ROSA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SEASIDE, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-3577 PVT

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO APPEAR BY

TELEPHONE, CONTINUING HEARING TO

AUGUST 8, 2006, AND TENTATIVELY

DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

SUBPOENA DRUG/ALCOHOL TREATMENT

RECORDS

On June 19, 2006 a “Motion to Compel Production of Records by Non-Party Valley Health

Associates” was filed by Defendants City of Seaside, Matthew Doza, Nick Borges, Dan Charlton and

Anthony J. Sollecito (collectively “City of Seaside”), which this court deemed to be a motion for

leave to subpoena patient records pursuant to 42 C.F.R. section 2.1(b)(2)(C) and/or section

2.2(b)(2)(C). Neither Plaintiffs nor Valley Health Associates (“VHA”) opposed the motion. On July

31, 2006, less than 24 hours before the scheduled hearing on the motion, Defendants filed a request

to appear by telephone at the hearing. Based on the papers submitted by Defendants and the file

herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request to appear by telephone is DENIED,

however, the hearing on Defendants’ motion for leave to subpoena patient records is CONTINUED

to 10:00 a.m. on August 8, 2006.

Case 5:05-cv-03577-JF Document 75 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave to subpoena patient records

is TENTATIVELY DENIED. Under 42 C.F.R. sections 2.1(b)(2)(C) and 2.2(b)(2)(C), a party

seeking disclosure of drug and alcohol treatment records must show good cause. “In assessing good

cause the court shall weigh the public interest and the need for disclosure against the injury to the

patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services.” See, 42 C.F.R.

§§ 2.1(b)(2)(C) & 2.2(b)(2)(C). Seaside argues there is good cause in this case because: 1) Rosa is

deceased, and thus disclosure of his private treatment records would not injure him; and 2) the

records are purportedly relevant to a defense of “suicide by cop.” However, the regulations apply

even after a patient dies. See, 42 C.F.R. § 2.15(b). The fact a patient is deceased does not eliminate

the legislature’s evident concern for the public’s expectation in the privacy of physician-patient

relationships and treatment services. Further, Defendants have presented little factual support for a

“suicide by cop” defense in this case. Granting Defendants’ request for leave to subpoena Michael

Rosa’s treatment records based on such a minimal showing of good cause would effectively

eviscerate the privacy protections of 42 C.F.R. sections 2.1(b)(2)(C) and 2.2(b)(2)(C) for all

deceased patients, in contravention of 42 C.F.R. section 2.15(b) (with limited exceptions not at issue

here, “disclosure of information identifying a deceased patient as an alcohol or drug abuser is subject

to these regulations.”)

Dated: 7/31/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03577-JF Document 75 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2