Balthrope v. Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/22/2012 ORDERING that this matter is set for hearing on 4/5/2012 at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom #26. CRH and the Sacramento County defendants shall submit a joint discovery statement in compliance with Local Rule 251. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ARIEL BALTHROPE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:10-cv-3003-KJM-JFM (PS)

vs.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

On December 9, 2011, counsel for non-party Children’s Receiving Home

18

(“CRH”), a non-profit provider of behavioral health and mental health services to children,

19

produced plaintiff’s mental health records in response to a subpoena issued by defendants

20

County of Sacramento, Bliss, Wolfe, Parske and Juarez (“the Sacramento County defendants”).

21

Rather than produce the documents to the Sacramento County defendants, CRH filed them under

22

seal with a letter referencing People v. Hammon, 15 Cal. 4th 1117 (Cal. 1997).

23

Upon review, the court construes CRH’s letter as a motion to quash on the basis

24

of the psychiatrist-patient privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). CRH contends

25

that, per Hammon, they should not be required to disclose plaintiff’s mental health records to the

26

Sacramento County defendants. In Hammon, the California Supreme Court held that, in light of
1

1

the strong policy of protecting a patient’s treatment history, the Sixth Amendment rights of

2

confrontation and cross-examination do not authorize pretrial disclosure of privileged psychiatric

3

information. Because the Sixth Amendment by its own terms applies only to “criminal

4

prosecutions,” CRH’s reliance on Hammon is misplaced.

5

Nonetheless, the court is cognizant of the protections afforded to mental health

6

records. In federal question cases, as here, the law of privilege is governed by federal common

7

law as interpreted by the courts of the United States. Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971

8

F.2d 364, 367 n.10 (9th Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court recognized the psychotherapist-patient

9

privilege in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15 (1996).

10

In this case, the Sacramento County defendants have not submitted any briefing

11

on this matter. Thus, the court cannot make a determination as to CRH’s motion to quash at this

12

time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is set for hearing on

13
14

April 5, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom #26. CRH and the Sacramento County defendants shall

15

submit a joint discovery statement in compliance with Local Rule 251.

16

DATED: February 22, 2012.

17
18
19
20

/014;balt3003.jo(6)

21
22
23
24
25
26
2