Bookhamer et al v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.

Filing 61

ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 1/23/2012. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ANTHONY BOOKHAMER,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

ORDER RE PARTIES’ JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER RE OKLAHOMA
STATE RECORDS [DOCKET NO. 50]

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS INC,

15

No. C-09-06027-EMC (DMR)

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

Defendant Sunbeam Products, Inc. (“Sunbeam”) seeks Oklahoma state and family court

18

records (“the Files”) relating to Plaintiffs Charles T. Martin, Jr., and Douglas DiSilvestro, two now-

19

adult children of decedent Victoria DiSilvestro. In this wrongful death action, Plaintiffs and their

20

paternal grandmother have asserted that the decedent provided her children with love, comfort, care,

21

companionship, affections, and financial support. Sunbeam believes that the Files, which date back

22

to the mid-1990s, contain information that may impeach Plaintiffs’ anticipated testimony about the

23

nature of their relationship with the decedent. To this end, Sunbeam filed a Petition for Disclosure

24

of Confidential Records of Oklahoma Department of Human Services records and a Motion for

25

Disclosure of Oklahoma Family Law Case No. J-95 in Oklahoma state court. Plaintiffs object to the

26

release of the Files as irrelevant, unlikely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, and protected

27

by California’s constitutional right to privacy. Plaintiffs ask the court to intervene in the Oklahoma

28

1

proceedings, as well as enter a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule

2

26(c).

3

The parties submitted a joint discovery dispute letter to the court. [Docket No. 50.] Four

4

days later, the court ordered the parties to suspend further action in the Oklahoma state proceedings

5

until the resolution of the present dispute. [Docket No. 53.] The court held a hearing on January 19,

6

2012. For the reasons below, the court denies Plaintiffs’ requests without prejudice.

7
8
9

Analysis
This case arises under diversity jurisdiction. In such instances, when resolving discovery
disputes, the court must evaluate any asserted privileges in accordance with the law of the state in
which the court sits -- in this case, California. See Fed. R. Evid. 501. California’s constitution

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

recognizes a right to privacy. See Cali. Const. art I, § 1. Although this right does not constitute a

12

recognized privilege, federal courts often have considered it when deciding discovery disputes.

13

Raggae v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 n.3 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

14

However, the present dispute involves Oklahoma state records, which are subject to

15

Oklahoma laws and administrative practices. When parties seek confidential records from a state

16

government, notions of comity and federalism direct that “the parties should first request the release

17

of such records from the appropriate state courts” or relevant administrative entity. Knight v.

18

McDaniel, No. 00-CV-106, 2001 WL 87436, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2001) (footnote and citation

19

omitted); accord United States v. Pretlow, 770 F. Supp. 239, 244 (D.N.J. 1991). As the United

20

States Supreme Court has stated, comity necessitates

21
22
23
24

a proper respect for state functions . . . and a continuance of the belief that the
National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to
perform their separate functions in their separate ways. . . . What the concept does
represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both
State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious
though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always
endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities
of the States.

25
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1971). Therefore, Oklahoma -- and not this Court -- has the
26
authority to evaluate the merits of Defendant’s Petition for Disclosure of Confidential Records of
27
Oklahoma Department of Human Services and Motion for Disclosure of Oklahoma Family Law
28

2

1

Case No. J-95, all pursuant to its own laws. The court therefore permits the parties to continue with

2

the Oklahoma state court proceedings.

3

Because the Oklahoma state court has not yet ruled on whether it will release the Files, the

4

court concludes that it is premature to make any ruling on their discoverability in this case. If the

5

Oklahoma court decides not to release the Files, the parties’ discovery dispute will be moot.

6

However, if the Oklahoma court releases the Files, and if Plaintiffs believe that, as a matter of

7

California privacy law, the Files are insufficiently protected, or if Plaintiffs have clear,

8

well-grounded arguments that the Files are not discoverable in this case, the parties shall meet and

9

confer, and file a joint letter on any remaining discovery disputes.

13

I

DONNA M. RYU
u
a M Ry
United States Magistrate Judge .
e Donn

ER

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

A

H

15

Judg

LI

14

R NIA

Dated: January 23, 2012

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

FO

S
UNIT
ED

12

RT

For the Northern District of California

11

NO

United States District Court

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

10

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C