Zeoli v. The State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al

Filing 70

ORDER CONCERNING REDACTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/07/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOSEPH ZEOLI,

Case No. 12-cv-02785-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER CONCERNING REDACTION
OF MEDICAL RECORDS

9
10
11

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILIATION, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 68

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff has redacted portions of three pages of medical records that he deems “non-

14

relevant and highly private.” Defendants contend that the redacted information is relevant to

15

plaintiff’s claims and urge that the documents be produced without redaction. The documents are

16

subject to a Stipulated Protective Order and were “apparently inadvertently” produced without

17

redaction, so the defendants are aware of the content of the redacted text. To resolve the dispute,

18

the parties have produced the documents to me in camera and submitted a Joint Statement

19

Concerning Disputed Discovery Issues, all of which I reviewed.

20

If the redacted portions were not relevant to the case, Plaintiff could reasonably expect that

21

those portions would be kept confidential. However, it seems possible, perhaps probable, that the

22

information is relevant, but I will not make that determination in a vacuum. Because the

23

documents are covered by the Stipulated Protective Order, defendants should be provided with

24

unredacted copies of the medical records at issue and should maintain their confidentiality in

25

accordance with that Order. To ensure that the sensitive information is not disclosed to those with

26

no need to know it prior to a further ruling by the Court, only redacted copies of the records

27

should be used as exhibits in a deposition or in any publicly available document. Any party that

28

files a motion in which the records are arguably relevant should seek a sealing order in accordance

1

with the Local Rules. To assure adequate preparation of the case for trial, defendants’ medical

2

expert may review an unredacted copy. If and when the case comes to trial, the Court will address

3

the relevancy of the redacted information at that time.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2