Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05619/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05619-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONICA HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-5619 PJH (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR ORDER FOR RELEASE

OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

DEPARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS 

(Docket No. 29)

The above-referenced case is a wrongful death action. Monty Holmes, the decedent, was

killed in a traffic accident that took place on or about April 24, 2007. Defendant subpoenaed the

San Francisco Police Department’s (“SFPD”) documents related to the accident. The SFPD

produced certain documents but withheld a number of photographs. The SFPD informed Defendant

that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 129, it would produce the photographs only

upon issuance of a court order. Defendant has now filed a motion asking the Court to issue an order

authorizing the release of the photographs by the SFPD. The SFPD has not opposed the motion but

Plaintiff, the decedent’s daughter, has. 

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby

GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

///

///

///

Case 4:08-cv-05619-PJH Document 54 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 3
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

I. DISCUSSION

As noted above, the SFPD has stated that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §

129, it will produce the photographs of Mr. Holmes only upon issuance of a court order. Section

129 provides in relevant part as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no copy,

reproduction, or facsimile of any kind shall be made of any

photograph, negative, or print, including instant photographs and

video recordings, of the body, or any portion of the body, of a

deceased person, taken by or for the coroner at the scene of death or in

the course of a post mortem examination or autopsy made by or

caused to be made by the coroner, except for use in a criminal action

or proceeding in this state that relates to the death of that person, or

except as a court of this state permits, by order after good cause has

been shown and after written notification of the request for the court

order has been served, at least five days before the order is made, upon

the district attorney of the county in which the post mortem

examination or autopsy has been made or caused to be made.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 129.

While the SFPD may be bound by § 129, this Court is not. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162

F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Plaintiff effectively admits as much in her opposition but argues

that, even so, a federal court may accommodate a state privilege in a federal question case. Plaintiff

is correct to a certain extent. 

[F]ederal common law provides for some consideration of state law

privileges, since a strong policy of comity between state and federal

sovereignties impels federal courts to recognize state privileges where

this can be accomplished at no substantial cost to federal substantive

and procedural policies. To resolve discovery disputes of this kind, a

federal court must balance the [moving party’s] interests in disclosure

against the state’s legitimate concern of protecting the [confidential

information] from unnecessary intrusions.

Mercado v. Division of N.Y. State Police, 989 F. Supp. 521, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

In this case, the balance weighs in favor of Defendant. Undoubtedly, the state has a

legitimate concern in protecting photographs of a deceased person from unnecessary intrusions. But

unlike the situation in Catsouras v. Dept. of CHP, Nos. G039916, G040330, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS

113 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2010), here, the photographs would not be used in a morbid manner or

for exploitative purposes. As this Court stated at the hearing, the photographs would be produced

Case 4:08-cv-05619-PJH Document 54 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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

1

 Defendant seeks only those photographs taken of Mr. Holmes at the accident scene; it does not

seek the release of photographs taken during the autopsy of Mr. Holmes. See Mot. at 5.

3

under a protective order for use only in this litigation and any graphic details of the injuries suffered

by the decedent can be redacted or blurred. On the other hand, Defendant has a significant interest

in obtaining the photographs in order to defend itself in the case.1

 The position of the decedent is in

dispute and the ultimate resting place of the body may have probative value. Plaintiff contends that

the photographs are not needed for Defendant to defend itself because there is already abundant

evidence about the scene of the accident. Plaintiff notes that both sides have already tendered expert

reports without the photographs. While there may be a fair amount of evidence already gathered by

the parties, and while that evidence may have been used by the experts as a basis for providing their

reports, that does not necessarily mean that the photographs are therefore redundant. There is a

possibility that expert reports may be supplemented.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion. The SFPD shall produce the

photographs forthwith under a protective order. The details of the decedent’s injuries may be

redacted or blurred.

This order disposes of Docket No. 29.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:08-cv-05619-PJH Document 54 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 3