Young v. CDCR

Filing 7

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 1 Motion to Quash Subpoenas signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/4/2012. Plaintiff's motion to quash, or alternatively to limit, the subpoenas issued by Defendant, is DENIED. CASE CLOSED.(Bradley, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
HOWARD YOUNG,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CDCR, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

1:12-mc-00019 GSA
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
(Document 1)

16
17

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

18

In 2009, Plaintiff Howard Young (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil rights complaint in the United

19

States District Court for the Southern District of California, case number 09-cv-2545 DMS JMA.

20

Related thereto, Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

21

(“Defendant” or “CDCR”) issued subpoenas out of this district, seeking records maintained at

22

Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas on the basis they are too broad

23

and are “not subject to the case in question.” Alternatively, he asks this Court to modify the

24

subpoenas to “limit them to the dates and incidents that are relevant” to the action pending before

25

the Southern District. (Doc. 1 [motion]; see also Doc. 6 [reply to opposition].)

26

//

27
28

1

1

As directed, Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to quash and/or modify

2

the subpoenas on April 30, 2012. Defendant contends the subpoenas issued relating to Plaintiff’s

3

medical records and central file are relevant and narrowly tailored. Moreover, Defendant asserts

4

Plaintiff has not met the heavy burden required of him. (Doc. 5 [opposition to motion].)

5
6

The matter was deemed submitted for written findings on May 31, 2012. (See Doc. 4
[minute order setting deadlines].) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
DISCUSSION1

7
8

The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a

9

fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible.”

10

United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958). Discovery will also serve to

11

narrow and clarify the issues in dispute. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947).

12
13
14
15
16
17

Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the scope of discovery and
states in pertinent part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description,
nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other
tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need
not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.

18
19

“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be

20

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v.

21

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna

22

Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990).

23

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

24

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or

25
26
27
28

1

This Court notes that Defendant is actually already in possession of the records it subpoenaed, however,
counsel for Defendant has not reviewed the records pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s motion.

2

1

modify a subpoena that:
......................................................
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other
protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies;
or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

2
3
4
5

Relevance

6

Plaintiff contends the discovery sought by Defendant is irrelevant. He does not, however,

7
8
9
10

explain how the information is irrelevant. (See Docs. 1 & 6.)
“‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any
fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than
it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 410.

11

This Court finds, following a review of Plaintiff’s claims and the subpoenas issued by

12

Defendant, that the discovery sought here is relevant. Plaintiff is reminded that relevance and

13

admissibility for purposes of trial are different determinations, to be made at a later date in the

14

matter now pending before the Southern District.

15

Breadth of the Subpoenas

16

Plaintiff contends the subpoenas are too broad. Defendant asserts the subpoenas were

17
18

narrowly tailored and only seek evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s claim or a defense.
This Court has reviewed the subpoenas issued by Defendant. The first subpoena seeks

19

“[m]edical records of Howard Young CDC# F-44590 from January 1, 2008 to the present

20

(excluding dental and optometry records).” (Doc. 5, Ex. B at 23.) The second subpoena seeks

21

particular records found in Plaintiff’s central or “C” file: “1) CDC 112 Chronological History; 2)

22

CDC 128G Classification Chronos; 3) CDC 115 Disciplinary Reports; 4) 837 Incident Packages;

23

5) Probation Report; 6) Abstracts of Judgment; 7) General and medical chronos; 8)

24

Administrative Segregation logs; and [9)] all 802's filed by” Plaintiff. (Doc. 5, Ex. C at 27.)

25

In light of the claims asserted by Plaintiff in the action now pending in the Southern

26

District (see Doc. 5, Ex. 1), Defendant’s subpoenas are not overbroad.

27
28

3

1

The subpoena pertaining to medical records does not require further limitation as to the

2

time period referenced, to wit: January 1, 2008 to present. As noted by Defendant, Plaintiff

3

claims he suffered a MRSA or staph infection as a result of Defendant’s actions; therefore,

4

whether or not Plaintiff has been treated for that infection or a similar infection prior to the time

5

period specifically pertaining to his claims - May 2009 to March 2010 - is a reasonable and

6

narrowly-tailored inquiry by Defendant.

7

The subpoena pertaining to the central file, while unlimited as to a time period, is not

8

overbroad in light of Plaintiff’s claims. Nor does Plaintiff explain how it is overbroad on this

9

basis, a burden that it his to meet.

10

Indeed, for but one example, Plaintiff’s claim regarding his right to receive a particular

11

diet in accordance with his religious beliefs may require discovery into those beliefs held during

12

his incarceration as a whole. See, e.g., Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972) (a prisoner is

13

entitled to a reasonable opportunity to practice his religion); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878,

14

884 (9th Cir. 2008) (religious belief must be “‘sincerely held’” and “‘rooted in religious belief’”).

15

Privacy Concerns

16

In his reply to Defendant’s opposition, Plaintiff claims his “rights to privacy need to be

17
18

protected,” and as a result, the subpoenas should be quashed. (Doc. 6.)
Although Plaintiff alleges a privacy privilege, that right is not absolute. Privacy rights are

19

generally recognized by federal courts. Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F. 2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir.

20

1992); DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F. 2d 114, 119-120 (3rd Cir. 1982). However, the right is not

21

absolute but may be subject to invasion depending on the circumstances. Hill v. National

22

Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 7 Cal.4th 1, 37, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 857 (1994). To evaluate privacy

23

objections under either federal or state law, the Court must balance the party’s need for the

24

information against the individual’s privacy rights. Thierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 2008 WL 3287035

25

(N.D. Cal. 2008), citing Ragge v. MCA/Universal, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 1995); see

26

also Davis v. Leal, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1110 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (California right to privacy is

27
28

4

1

subject to a balancing of the needs of the litigation with the sensitivity of the information/records

2

sought).

3

Here, balancing Defendant’s need for the information it seeks against Plaintiff’s

4

individual privacy rights tips in Defendant’s favor. Plaintiff’s suit concerns his placement in the

5

administrative segregation unit wherein the cell in which he was housed had a malfunctioning

6

toilet and was constantly illuminated. As a result of the unsanitary conditions present, Plaintiff

7

suffered a MRSA/staph infection. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges he was denied access to outdoor

8

exercise for a period of ten months. Finally, Plaintiff alleges he is a “Hebrew Israelite,” whom is

9

entitled to kosher meals, yet Plaintiff was served non-conforming religious vegetarian meals

10

instead. The information sought by Defendant from Plaintiff’s central file and medical records is

11

relevant to both Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses to those claims. Because Plaintiff’s

12

claims have placed his health and his confinement conditions at issue, Plaintiff’s privacy rights

13

must give way to Defendant’s access to this information.

14

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

15
16

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash, or alternatively to limit, the
subpoenas issued by Defendant, is DENIED.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:
6i0kij

June 4, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5