Moak v. Sacramento County

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/8/2016 ORDERING plaintiff's 28 motion to quash the subpoena issued to the Correctional Health Services is GRANTED without prejudice to the issuance of a subpoena for plaintiff's medical records from the Sacramento County Jail or the "Correctional Health Services" which administers the Sacramento County medical records, and served on the proper address; plaintiff's 27 motion to quash the subpoena issued to VSP Litigation Coordinator is GRANTED; and the Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on Bret Butler, Medical Records Tech and Monica Pacifico, Litigation Coordinator. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW MOAK,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0640 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

I. Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On June 13, 2016, plaintiff filed

19

motions to quash subpoenas issued to the Valley State Prison Litigation Coordinator for

20

plaintiff’s non-confidential prison central file, and to “Correctional Health Services,” for all of

21

plaintiff’s medical records. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) Defendant filed an opposition. As discussed

22

more fully below, the court grants plaintiff’s motions.

23

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

24

In his pleading, plaintiff alleges that from April 2012 to September 2013, while he was a

25

pretrial detainee housed in the Sacramento County Jail, defendant maintained a policy or custom

26

of allowing a backflushing problem to exist within the plumbing system at the jail, and refused to

27

provide cleaning supplies to sanitize the cell after waste water splashed out of the toilets.

28
1

1
2

III. Legal Standard
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

3

party’s claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the

4

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R.

5

Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

6

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court, on timely

7

motion, to “quash or modify a subpoena that . . . requires disclosure of privileged or other

8

protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R.

9

Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), (iv). “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that

10

discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its

11

objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

12

“Quashing subpoenas goes against courts general preference for a broad scope of

13

discovery, [but] limiting discovery is appropriate when the burden of providing the documents

14

outweighs the need for it.” Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1, 062, 770 F.Supp.2d 332,

15

354-355 (D. D.C. 2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “When evaluating whether the

16

burden of subpoena compliance is undue, the court balances the burden imposed on the party

17

subject to the subpoena by the discovery request, the relevance of the information sought to the

18

claims or defenses at issue, the breadth of the discovery request, and the litigant’s need for the

19

information.” Id. (internal quotations omitted); see also Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D.

20

633, 637 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (“Although irrelevance is not among the litany of enumerated reasons

21

for quashing a subpoena found in Rule 45, courts have incorporated relevance as a factor when

22

determining motions to quash.”); Fed. R. Evid. 401 (Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency

23

to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”). “Whether a

24

burdensome subpoena is reasonable must be determined according to the facts of the case, such as

25

the party’s need for the documents and the nature and importance of the litigation.” Linder v.

26

Dep’t of Def., 133 F.3d 17, 24 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The

27

court must limit discovery when the “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or

28

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,
2

1

or less expensive; the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the

2

information by discovery in the action; or the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted

3

by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i-iii).

4

IV. Two Pending Subpoenas

5

A. Correctional Health Services

6

In the subpoena directed to “Correctional Health Services,” defendant seeks “any and all

7

medical records of Andrew Moak.” (ECF No. 27 at 6.) Plaintiff objects that his medical file at

8

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is privileged and not

9

relevant to plaintiff’s claims brought as a pretrial detainee housed in the Sacramento County Jail.

10

In response, defendant contends that at plaintiff’s deposition, defense counsel clarified that this

11

subpoena was directed to the Sacramento County Correctional Health Services, not the CDCR.

12

Defense counsel avers that plaintiff has no objection to the disclosure of his health records from

13

the Sacramento County Correctional Health Services records. (ECF No. 29 at 5.) Plaintiff did

14

not file a reply to defendant’s response; however, in his motion to quash, plaintiff notes that

15

defendant sent the subpoena to Valley State Prison Correctional Health Services. (ECF No. 28 at

16

2.)
The subpoena does not identify “Correctional Health Services” as the “Sacramento

17
18

County Correctional Health Services,” or “for the Sacramento County Jail;” the subpoena does

19

not state that the request is for Mr. Moak’s medical records from the Sacramento County Jail; and

20

no address for the nonparty subpoenaed is provided on the first page of the subpoena form. (ECF

21

Nos. 28 at 6; 29-1 at 2.) However, defendant provided a copy of the subpoena which bears a

22

proof of service on the second page reflecting that the subpoena was served on Bret Butler,

23

Medical Records Tech, California Health Services, P.O. Box 588500, Elk Grove, CA 95758.

24

(ECF No. 29-1 at 3.) A google search for Correctional Health Services, Elk Grove, brought up a

25

website that appears to be a California state website set up under the receivership established as a

26

result of the Plata v. Schwarzenegger class action against the State of California over the quality

27

////

28

////
3

1

of medical care in the state’s 33 prisons.1 The California Correctional Health Care Services,

2

known as “CCHCS,” appears to cover only state prisons, not county jails. Id. The general

3

contact information for this state government website is “California Correctional Health Care

4

Services, P.O. Box 588500, Elk Grove, CA 95658,” the same address as that listed on the proof

5

of service for the instant subpoena. Id.
Thus, despite defendant’s effort to assuage plaintiff’s concern that the subpoena was

6
7

directed to the Sacramento County Correctional Health Services, and not the state prison, the

8

subpoena itself offers no such assurance. Rather, it appears that although the name was correct:

9

“Correctional Health Services,” the subpoena was not served on the proper address.2 Because the

10

subpoena was directed to an address for the receivership over state prisons, and not to the

11

Sacramento County Jail or the “Correctional Health Services” for Sacramento County, plaintiff’s

12

motion to quash the subpoena directed to the Correctional Health Services and mailed to the

13

California Health Services is granted. However, this order is without prejudice to the issuance of

14

a subpoena to the medical records administrator for the Sacramento County Jail, and served on

15

the correct address.

16

////

17

////

18

1

19
20
21
22
23

California Correctional Health Services, <www.cphcs.ca.gov>, accessed July 6, 2016.

2

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s website identifies the “Correctional Health Services” as the
administrator of all health services to adult inmates within the county jail system. (Sacramento
Co. Sheriff’s Dept.,
<www.sacsheriff.com/pages/organization/correctional_health/correctionalhealth.aspx>, accessed
July 6, 2016.) However, their website does not provide a physical address for the mailing of
medical records requests. Rather, the website provides an email address: [e-mail], a fax number, and a phone number at which a person may leave a
message.

24
25
26
27
28

The court observes that the proof of service also states that the manner of service was
“electronic.” (ECF No. 29-1 at 3.) But the proof of service does not provide the electronic
address to which the subpoena was served. Thus, it may be that Bret Butler, Medical Records
Tech, works for the Correctional Health Services that administers the Sacramento County Jail
inmate medical records, and the subpoena was properly served. If such is the case, the
undersigned would entertain a request for reconsideration provided the request is accompanied by
a properly-completed proof of service.
4

1

B. Valley State Prison

2

In the subpoena directed to the Litigation Coordinator at the Valley State Prison (“VSP”),

3

defendant seeks plaintiff’s “entire non-confidential central file.” (ECF No. 29-1 at 6.) Plaintiff

4

objects to this subpoena, claiming that plaintiff’s prison central file is privileged and is irrelevant

5

to any facts stemming from the incidents that occurred in the Sacramento County Jail while

6

plaintiff was a pretrial detainee. (ECF No. 27 at 2.)

7

In response, defendant contends that there are no records of plaintiff making any

8

complaints concerning backflushing toilets while he was housed at the jail. (ECF No. 29 at 3.)

9

Defense counsel avers that she learned, and plaintiff confirmed at his deposition, that another

10

prisoner at VSP has been preparing nearly all of plaintiff’s filings and discovery in this action,

11

and has demanded a 15% cut of plaintiff’s recovery in exchange for such services. (ECF No. 29

12

at 3.) Defense counsel also learned that this same VSP prisoner has filed a large number of other

13

“backflush toilet” cases for numerous other inmates, involving different correctional institutions

14

around the state. (Id.) Defense counsel also learned that plaintiff is in the process of obtaining

15

two declarations from other VSP prisoners that will allegedly support plaintiff’s claims against

16

defendant. Therefore, defendant seeks plaintiff’s central file to determine whether plaintiff has

17

filed grievances involving similar complaints or claims against VSP or the CDCR, to obtain

18

plaintiff’s housing location within the prison as it relates to the location of other potential

19

witnesses/declarants; and records of any interactions with the prisoner who has drafted plaintiff’s

20

filings and discovery requests and/or plaintiff’s alleged witnesses/declarants. (ECF No. 29 at 4.)

21

Defendant argues that such records are “relevant as they may lead to the discovery of admissible

22

evidence regarding motive, intent and/or plan by plaintiff and his prison associates.” (Id.)

23

Defendant contends such information is important to refute plaintiff’s claims in this case, and

24

does not pose a burden to plaintiff or VSP as counsel believes the records are stored electronically

25

and can be produced by disk to defense counsel. Defendant argues that absent subpoena,

26

defendant has no other access to this CDCR/VSP information. (ECF No. 29 at 4.)

27

////

28

////
5

1

The court finds that complaints filed after plaintiff was convicted and housed in CDCR

2

custody are of no relevance to plaintiff’s allegations concerning his living conditions at the

3

Sacramento County Jail. Plaintiff’s motion to quash the VSP subpoena is granted.

4

V. Conclusion

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to the Correctional Health Services

7

(ECF No. 28), and served on the California Correctional Health Care Services address, is granted,

8

without prejudice to the issuance of a subpoena for plaintiff’s medical records from the

9

Sacramento County Jail or the “Correctional Health Services” which administers the Sacramento

10
11
12
13

County medical records, and served on the proper address;
2. Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to the Valley State Prison Litigation
Coordinator (ECF No. 27) is granted; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Bret Butler, Medical

14

Records Tech, Correctional Health Services, P.O. Box 588500, Elk Grove, CA 95758, and

15

Monica Pacifico, Litigation Coordinator, Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 99, Chowchilla, CA

16

93610-0099.

17

Dated: July 8, 2016

18
19
20

/moak0640.mtq

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6