Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03577/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03577-4/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

1 The court notes that the subpoena was defective in any event, because it issued from

the United States District Court for the Central District of California, but called for production of

records in Salinas, which is in the Northern District of California. 

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

INTERIM ORDER DEEMING MOTION TO BE

A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBPOENA

DRUG/ALCOHOL TREATMENT RECORDS;

AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR ANY

OPPOSITION OR RESPONSE BY VALLEY

HEALTH ASSOCIATES

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”). Having reviewed the moving papers, the court

finds it appropriate to issue this interim order. Based on the moving papers,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is 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). The subpoena

served on Valley Health Associates (“VHA”) by the City of Seaside, without a prior authorizing

court order, was ineffective to require VHA to produce any patient drug and/or alcohol treatment

records.1 See 42 C.F.R. § 2.13(b) (“The restrictions on disclosure and use in these regulations apply

Case 5:05-cv-03577-JF Document 72 Filed 06/21/06 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

2 Under 42 C.F.R. sections 2.1(b)(2)(C) and/or section 2.2(b)(2)(C), the court is required

to weigh the public interest and the need for disclosure against the injury to the patient, to the physicianpatient relationship, and to the treatment services. Thus, it is appropriate for the treatment center to

comment on these factors if it so desires, and the court will take any such comments into consideration

in determining whether to grant the City of Seaside’s motion.

ORDER, page 2

whether the holder of the information believes that the person seeking the information . . . has

obtained a subpoena . . . .”). In the context of drug and/or alcohol treatment records, the

subpoenaing party must first obtain court authorization.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than June 23, 2006, the City of Seaside shall serve

a copy of this order on VHA (by fax and overnight mail), and shall file a proof of service no later

than June 26, 2006. The motion shall remain on calendar for August 1, 2006 (pursuant to City of

Seaside’s amended notice of motion).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any opposition to the motion, including any opposition or

other response by VHA,2 shall be served and filed no later than July 11, 2006. Any reply shall be

served and filed no later than July 18, 2006.

Dated: 6/21/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03577-JF Document 72 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2