Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05070/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05070-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY W. HUNTSINGER, CASE NO. 1:03-cv-5070 REC TAG

Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION 

OF DOCUMENT RESPONSIVE TO

vs. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR

PRODUCTION NOS. 37 AND 38

NORTHERN INYO COUNTY LOCAL 

HOSPITAL DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff Anthony W. Huntsinger and Defendant Northern Inyo County

Local Hospital District filed a pleading entitled “Stipulation Concerning Discoverability of

Document Responsive to Requests Nos. 37 and 38 of First Inspection Demand; Proposed Alternative

Orders” (“Stipulation”). (Court Doc. 93). The Stipulation advised the Court that pursuant to an

earlier court order, presumably an Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Production

of Documents and Request to File Documents under Seal dated April 28, 2005 (Court Doc. 81),

Defendant recently produced a responsive document which is a “Statement of Deficiencies and Plan

of Corrective Action” for a survey completed on May 20, 1998. 

The Stipulation further advised that the parties disagree upon whether “Evidence Code

Section 1157” applies to the Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Corrective Action, and that 

Defendant has not filed a motion for a protective order because it contends that it is unlikely the

Court will apply Section 1157 as a basis to allow Defendant to withhold production of such

document. Instead, the parties have brought their disagreement to the Court’s attention by way of the

Stipulation, and request the Court to consider resolving this discovery dispute by making one of two

alternative proposed orders submitted with the Stipulation. 

Case 1:03-cv-05070-REC-TAG Document 94 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 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

2

ORDER

The Court has reviewed and considered the Stipulation and proposed orders, and makes the

following order thereon: 

1. On or before July 26, 2005, Defendant Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District

must produce to Plaintiff the Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Corrective Action for a survey

completed on May 20, 1998; provided, however, that the identity of any physician named in the

document may be redacted to protect any privilege, and a protective order shall first be issued to

address any remaining reporting party or reported party privacy concerns. 

2. Counsel for the parties to meet and confer and agree upon a mutually acceptable

form of protective order, to be approved by the Court before the Statement of Deficiencies and Plan

of Corrective Action is produced. The parties must memorialize their agreement in a written

stipulation to be filed with the Court, which either attaches the proposed form of protective order, or

makes specific reference to the date of any prior protective order which the parties request to have 

be applied to the Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Corrective Action. If the parties are unable to

agree upon the form of the protective order, the parties may return to the Court for further relief. 

3. The first proposed form of order submitted with the Stipulation recites that the

Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Corrective Action “may be produced pursuant to the

previously filed Stipulation for Protective Order.” However, more than one stipulation for a

protective order was filed in this matter, and the Stipulation does not state which one was agreed

upon. Further, it appears that no protective order has been issued in this matter since April 28, 2005

(the date of the Court’s ruling compelling the partial production of documents in response to

Plaintiff’s requests for production nos. 37 and 38), and thus the parties may wish to consider

submitting a stipulated proposed form of protective order tailored to address the particular privacy

concerns raised with respect to the production of the Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of

Corrective Action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05070-REC-TAG Document 94 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2