(PC) Washington v. Yaplee

Filing 32

PROTECTIVE ORDER and ORDER Limiting Scope of Subpoena; ORDER Allowing CDCR to Produce Records, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/18/2021. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ROBERT WASHINGTON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:20-cv-01356-EPG (PC)
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ORDER
LIMITING SCOPE OF SUBPOENA

v.
(ECF No. 29)
STEVEN M. YAPLEE,

13

Defendant.

ORDER ALLOWING CDCR TO PRODUCE
RECORDS

14
Robert Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

15
16

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff made a filing in the form of a letter, in which Plaintiff asks

18

the Court to limit the scope of Defendant’s subpoena to the California Department of Corrections

19

and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (ECF No. 29).
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion in part.

20
21

I.

Plaintiff’s Motion
In Plaintiff’s filing, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant to limit the scope of his

22
23

subpoena. Plaintiff states that Defendant seeks all of his medical records from all of his doctors.

24

However, as the issue in this case relates to his eye, Plaintiff argues that the Court should limit

25

Defendant’s document request to medical records that pertain only to his eye. Plaintiff also

26

argues that releasing records not pertinent to this case could be a violation of HIPPA.

27
28

II.

Defendant’s Opposition
On October 27, 2021, Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 31). “In mid-May of
1

1

2021, counsel for defendant’s office issued a subpoena duces tecum for plaintiff Robert

2

Washington’s medical and treatment related records from the California Correctional Institution –

3

Tehachapi / California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.” (Id. at 2) (citation

4

omitted).

5

Specifically, defense counsel sought:

6

Any and all writings (used herein as defined in California Evidence Code section
250), including hospital and/or medical records and documents whether stored
digitally and/or electronically, including doctor’s entries, nurses’ notes, medical
reports, progress reports, X-ray report, radiology reports, MRI reports, lab reports,
myelogram reports, physical therapy records, case history, emergency records,
diagnoses, prognoses, condition, admit and discharge records from first date of
treatment to the present for ROBERT WASHINGTON (DOB: 01/12/1966). Any
and all itemized statements of charges pertaining to the care, treatment, and
examination of the individual named herein regardless of treatment date including
but not limited to all billing, invoices, statements, and insurance claims for
ROBERT WASHINGTON. Any and all medical bills, medical billing records,
liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing,
records showing write-offs or adjustments to amounts billed, and records or
payment by insurance carriers, government entities, and/or any other person or
entity for amounts owed by ROBERT WASHINGTON. Any and all sign in sheets
or other documents or writings that would evidence ROBERT WASHINGTON's
attendance to this location on a specific date. Any and all reports [] or summaries
prepared of the care and treatment rendered to ROBERT WASHINGTON from
the first date of treatment to the present. Any and all documents that were given to
the patient upon their initial presentation to this location to fill out, including any
patient questionnaires; pain diagrams, intake documents, patient registrations,
history documents, or any other writings that were completed by the patient at any
time during their presentation for care and treatment. Any and all writings that
describe, discuss, or evidence a referral source who referred the patient to care and
treatment at this location.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(Id.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“The production date for the records sought was June 29, 2021. However, responsive

23

records were not produced in response to the validly issued subpoena duces tecum, and no

24

records whatsoever have been produced by the CDCR to date in response to the SDT.” (Id.)

25

(citation omitted).

26

“Counsel for defendant Dr. Yaplee specifically used broad subpoena language in the

27

request to the California Correctional Institution – Tehachapi / California Department of

28

Corrections and Rehabilitation given that defendant Dr. Yaplee had suspicions that the patient’s
2

1

left eye inflammation that he was seeing in September and October of 2016 may have been

2

explained by an underlying autoimmune systemic disorder. Dr. Yaplee never was able to find out

3

the answer to that question, and the scope of the subpoena to California Correctional Institution –

4

Tehachapi / California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was intended, in part, to

5

provide the defense with information about potential causes of the patient’s current left eye

6

status.” (Id. at 3-4) (citations omitted).
Additionally, “[t]he defense requests that this Court issue an order stating that the CDCR

7
8

must respond to the subpoena as currently constituted.” (Id. at 6).

9

III.

Analysis

10

The Court has reviewed the filings, and will grant Plaintiff’s motion in part.

11

The Court finds that while Defendant is seeking relevant documents, the request, which

12

appears to be for all of Plaintiff’s medical records (with no limitations), is overboard.

13

Accordingly, the Court will limit the request as follows: 1) The CDCR shall only produce

14

medical records from June 13, 2013 (approximately three years before the incidents alleged in the

15

complaint), through November 18, 2021; and 2) The CDCR shall not produce mental health

16

records.

17

Additionally, Defendant will not be allowed to disclose any documents he receives from

18

the subpoena request to anyone, except to the parties; the Court and Court staff; counsel and

19

counsel’s staff; Defendant’s experts; and court reporters and their staff.1

20

As to Defendant’s request that the Court issue an order stating that the CDCR must

21

respond to the subpoena, it will be denied at this time, without prejudice.2 The Court does,

22

however, note that the CDCR may produce the documents, subject to the limitations in this order.

23

IV.

24

Order

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

25

1. The CDCR shall only produce medical records from June 13, 2013, through

26

1

27
28

The Court is not ordering that the documents must be filed under seal if they are filed with the Court. The
Court refers the parties to Local Rule 141, which explains the procedures for requesting that documents be sealed.
2
Defendant has not filed a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena or a motion for sanctions. If the
CDCR refuses to produce the documents following the issuance of this order, Defendant has thirty days from the date
of service of this order to file a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena and/or a motion for sanctions.

3

1

November 18, 2021;

2

2. The CDCR shall not produce mental health records;

3

3. Defendant’s counsel shall not disclose the documents he receives from the subpoena

4

to the CDCR with anyone, except the parties; the Court and Court staff; counsel and

5

counsel’s staff; Defendant’s experts; and court reporters and their staff; and

6

4. The CDCR may produce the documents requested in Defendant’s subpoena, subject to

7

the limitations in this order.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 18, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4