Bosley v. Valasco et al

Filing 39

ORDER Regarding 37 Stipulated Protective Order for Mental Health Records re Robert Bosley, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/7/16. Deadline: 2/8/2016. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT DeWAYNE BOSLEY, JR.,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
M. VALASCO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00049-MJS (PC)
ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR MENTAL
HEALTH RECORDS RE ROBERT
BOSLEY
(ECF No. 37)
FEBRUARY 8, 2016 DEADLINE

16
17

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

20

Defendant Velasco on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Excessive Force claim, which

21

arose while Plaintiff was detained pre-trial at the Fresno County Jail.

22

Before the Court for approval is a stipulated1 protective order between defense

23

counsel and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), a

24

non-party. (ECF No. 37.) The stipulation notes that, on December 3, 2015, defense

25
1

26
27
28

In this Court’s experience “stipulation” refers to an agreement among all parties, or at least all parties
affected by the proposed stipulation. It is thus misleading to suggest that what was presented here is a
“stipulation” since the party primarily affected by it objects to it. The Court notes that Defense counsel fully
disclosed the circumstances of this “stipulation”, and so assumes no intent to mislead. However, a more
appropriate title would have precluded the risk of the Court reasonably assuming all parties were in
agreement.

1

counsel issued a subpoena for Plaintiff’s mental health records in the custody of CDCR.

2

The motion further states that, pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code §

3

5328(f), CDCR may not release mental health records without a Court order stating that

4

such release is necessary to the administration of justice. The stipulation states that the

5

records are necessary to the administration of justice because Plaintiff put his mental

6

health in issue. The stipulation also sets forth various restrictions on the use and

7

distribution of the documents.

8

After filing the stipulation, defense counsel filed a declaration stating that Plaintiff

9

had written to defense counsel objecting to the release of mental health records.

10

However, because Plaintiff had not filed a motion to quash, defense counsel “invite[d]

11

the Court to set a motion to quash the subpoena sua sponte.” Defense counsel also

12

noted that the discovery deadline in this action is January 12, 2016, and requested time

13

beyond that deadline to resolve this issue.

14

II.

DISCUSSION

15

The stipulated protective order purports to serve as a judicial finding that the

16

records at issue are necessary for the administration of justice. For the reasons set forth

17

below, the Court is unable to make such a finding.

18

First, the protective order specifies that only those mental health records identified

19

in the December 3, 2015 subpoena will be produced. However, no such subpoena has

20

been presented to the Court. Without the ability to examine the proposed subpoena

21

language, the Court cannot determine if the request is properly limited to protect

22

Plaintiff’s interest in the confidentiality of such records.

23

Second, the Court is unable to determine that such disclosure is necessary to the

24

administration of justice, California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5328(f), or supported

25

by good cause, 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(b).2 The instant matter involves a single claim of

26

excessive force. Plaintiff’s allegation that he suffered “mental anguish” as a result does

27
2

28

Actually, due to the lack of information provided regarding the records sought, it is difficult to determine
whether either of the cited provisions applies.

2

1

not support a wholesale disclosure of all of Plaintiff’s mental health records. Again,

2

without the ability to review the subpoena or the records, the Court cannot determine

3

whether or to what extent disclosure may be necessary. A stipulation between defense

4

counsel and a non-party cannot alone support a finding of necessity or good cause

5

particularly where, as here, Plaintiff writes to defense counsel to object that the

6

subpoena is overbroad and offers to provide copies of relevant records.

7

CDCR has been subpoenaed to provide Plaintiff’s mental health records. If CDCR

8

cannot comply with the subpoena without a court order, it may file a motion to quash.

9

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii). If CDCR does not file such a motion but nonetheless

10

refuses to provide the records, defense counsel may seek an Order of the Court

11

compelling compliance with the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B)(i). Alternatively,

12

defense counsel may attempt to resolve the matter by filing further briefing with

13

competent support addressing the concerns outlined above.

14

Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes to object to the subpoena, he may file with the

15

Court a motion to quash subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. He

16

should in all events advise the Court as well of the opposing party of his objections.

17

III.

CONCLUSION

18

Based on the information provided, the Court cannot presently approve the

19

stipulation between defense counsel and CDCR for release of Plaintiff’s mental health

20

records. The Court will afford the parties to and including February 8, 2016 to file any

21

further briefing or motions in relation to this issue.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 7, 2016

/s/

25

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3