Stallworth v. County of Santa Clara et al
Filing
49
ORDER regarding 47 the parties' May 3, 2013 discovery letter brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 5/17/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
KATHLEEN STALLWORTH,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
No. C 11-04841 JSW (LB)
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’
MAY 3, 2013 JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF
v.
13
ANDREA BROLLINI, et al.,
14
15
[Re: ECF No. 47]
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
16
17
INTRODUCTION
In this action, which was removed from state court, Plaintiff Kathleen Stallworth sued
18
defendants Andrea Brollini, Michelle de la Calle, the County of Santa Clara (the “County”), and the
19
Santa Clara Personnel Board (collectively, “Defendants”) for retaliation and violation of her federal
20
and state civil rights. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 1-17. The district court ordered that all
21
discovery disputes in this case be referred to the undersigned for resolution. Order of Referral, ECF
22
No. 16; Notice of Referral, ECF No. 18. Now, the parties disagree about the adequacy of the
23
County’s response to two of Plaintiff's document requests: RFP Nos. 182 and 183. See 5/3/13 Joint
24
Letter Brief, ECF No. 47 at 1. Those requests seek patient records. Id. The court held a hearing on
25
May 16, 2013 and orders disclosure pursuant to the parties’ protective order.
26
STATEMENT
27
Ms. Stallworth is a registered nurse. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 5, ¶ 1. She worked for
28
the County for over twenty years in the emergency department of the Valley Medical Center
C 11-04841 JSW (LB)
ORDER
1
(“VMC”). Id. She alleges that in March 2009 she reported to VMC senior management that certain
2
members of the medical staff were using an unsafe and unlawful medical practice. Id. at 8, ¶ 14. As
3
a result of her report, she alleges that she was retaliated against for roughly eighteen months and
4
ultimately was transferred to another unit within the VMC and demoted. See id. at 8-10, ¶¶ 15-21.
5
She sued the Defendants in Santa Clara County Superior Court, bringing claims for invasion of
6
privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation under California Labor Code § 1102,
7
California Government Code §§ 1278.5, 6310(b) and 12940, violation of her civil rights under
8
California Civil Code § 52 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and administrative mandamus. See id. at 5-17.
9
Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See id.
10
at 1-2.
On May 3, 2013, the parties filed a joint letter describing their discovery dispute about whether
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
the County should produce a particular patient's medical records. 5/3/2013 Joint Letter, ECF No. 47.
13
One of Defendant’s purported reasons for terminating Plaintiff is that patients complained about her.
14
One of incidents involved Patient TC, who says that Plaintiff gave her a drug that she told Plaintiff
15
she was allergic to. When initially considering the complaint, Defendant Brollini apparently
16
reviewed medical records for TC’s visits to the hospital in November 2009, and after doing so,
17
believed TC’s complaint was valid. Now, Plaintiff wants to get TC’s other medical records from
18
January 1, 2009 to November 27, 2009 (which apparently involve three other visits) and the
19
administrative records related to Defendant’s review of her complaint. Id. at 1-2 and 4,
20
ANALYSIS
21
As always, the court must first determine whether the information sought is relevant. See Fed.
22
R. Civ. P. 26(b) (subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), “[p]arties may obtain
23
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense . . . .”).
24
Plaintiff argues that the records are discoverable, relate to her claims for retaliation and
25
Defendant’s defense to them, are not overbroad, and do not invade TC’s privacy rights because
26
Plaintiff need for the information outweighs TC’s privacy rights and in any case there is a protective
27
order in place. Id. at 1-2. The theory is that the additional records are relevant to show that TC was
28
a drug seeker, the records will show this, Defendant Brollini reviewed the file and believed TC’s
C 11-04841 JSW (LB)
ORDER
2
1
complaints, that belief could not have been well-founded, and that is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of
2
retaliation by Ms. Brollini. Id.
3
Defendant responds that it already produced the medical record for the November 2009 visit and
4
the nursing notes for all four visits. Id. at 3-4. The notes were produced because Defendant Brollini
5
reviewed those records in investigating Plaintiff's assertions about whether Patient TC reported the
6
allergy. Id. There is no evidence that Defendant Brollini reviewed other portions of TC's medical
7
records not already produced, Plaintiff never asked about the scope of review during the deposition,
8
and so Defendant has produced the records that are at issue in the litigation. Id. at 4. Defendant
9
argues that absent information that Defendant Brollini reviewed records, the records are not at issue
Constitution, Article 1, section 1, California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Civil
12
For the Northern District of California
in the litigation, and production of them would violate TC’s privacy interests under California
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
Code §§ 56-56.7, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”),
13
Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (codified at various sections of Titles 18, 29, and 42 of
14
the United States Code). Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 47 at 4. Defendant also is concerned that
15
Plaintiff developed her “TC was a drug-seeker” theory improperly when she by happenstance treated
16
her in January 2013. Id. at 4-5.
17
The relevant rules allow production pursuant to a protective order. See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. §
18
164.512(e)(1)(i), (ii) (under HIPAA, “covered entities” such as care providers may disclose
19
protected medical records without patient consent: (1) in response to a court order, provided only the
20
information specified in the court order is disclosed; or (2) in response to a subpoena or discovery
21
request if the health care provider receives adequate assurance that the individual whose records are
22
requested has been given sufficient notice of the request, or if reasonable efforts have been made to
23
secure a protective order). The parties already have produced relevant patient records under that
24
order. The issue is whether Plaintiff ought to get these additional records.
25
At the hearing, the court talked more with the parties about the relevance of the discovery. As to
26
Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff never asked about the scope of the review at Ms. Brollini’s
27
deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel disputed that and said he asked about it on the day that someone else
28
defended the deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel also disputed the concern that Ms. Stallworth developed
C 11-04841 JSW (LB)
ORDER
3
1
the theory only in January 2013 and asserted that he developed the theory based on his investigation.
2
In the end, the relevance is pretty attenuated, but it has some possible bearing (maybe) on the
3
scope of Ms. Brollini’s review and whether her decisions based on her review of all the patient
4
complaints are suspect. That in turn is relevant to retaliation. There is no burden argument, and the
5
records pertain only to 2009 and apparently involve only three visits. The privacy issue is a fair one,
6
but TC’s November 2009 visit and nursing notes for the full year already have been produced.
7
Based on all of this, with the close call and no burden, the court orders disclosure pursuant to the
8
protective order.
9
CONCLUSION
10
Plaintiff’s request is granted, and the court orders disclosure pursuant to the protective order.
This disposes of ECF No. 47.
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: May 17, 2013
14
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 11-04841 JSW (LB)
ORDER
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?