Frank v. County of Humboldt et al
Filing
147
ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte denying 111 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 113 Motion to Compel; denying 114 Motion to Compel; denying 115 Motion to Compel; denying 126 Motion to Compel (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
MINNY FRANK,
Plaintiff,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
No. C -13-00089 MMC (EDL)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
DISCOVERY MOTIONS
v.
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
13
14
Before the Court are five discovery motions filed by Plaintiff Minny Frank. Docket Nos.
15
111, 113, 114, 115, 126. Because these matters are appropriate for decision without oral argument,
16
the Court vacated the May 6, 2014 hearing.
17
18
19
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from County of Humboldt
Plaintiff seeks the Child Welfare Services records relating to her son from the County of
20
Humboldt. These records are protected from disclosure by California Welfare & Institutions Code
21
Section 827 without first obtaining authorization for release of the records from the Humboldt
22
County Superior Court. Section 827 lists the people and entities that can inspect juvenile case files.
23
The term “juvenile case files” is defined by section 827(e): “For purposes of this section, a ‘juvenile
24
case file’ means a petition filed in any juvenile court proceeding, reports of the probation officer,
25
and all other documents filed in that case or made available to the probation officer in making his or
26
her report, or to the judge, referee, or other hearing officer, and thereafter retained by the probation
27
officer, judge, referee, or other hearing officer.” Although a juvenile’s parents can inspect juvenile
28
case files (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(a)(1)(D)), the release of the records is within the control of
the state court. See Lorenza P. v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.3d 607, 611 (1988) (stating that the
1
juvenile court has exclusive authority to determine the extent to which confidential juvenile records
2
may be released and controls “the time, place and manner of inspection.”). Even if the juvenile
3
court proceedings are not instituted and the matter is handled informally, the records relating to the
4
incident remain confidential. Id. at 610. There does not need to be a filed petition for
5
confidentiality to attach.
6
Plaintiff argues that because she is the juvenile’s mother, she is entitled to obtain the records
on her own, so the County should provide them to her in this case. However, as set forth above,
8
release of the records requires an order from the state court. The County Defendants are preparing
9
to petition the superior court for release of the records to them for use in this litigation. Delaney
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
7
Decl. ¶ 5. As part of that process, the County Defendants asked Plaintiff to stipulate to entry of a
11
protective order in this litigation to govern the use of the records, so that County Defendants could
12
provide the records to Plaintiff. Delaney Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff has refused to enter into the protective
13
order because she wants to use the records outside the context of this case. Delaney Decl. ¶ 7; Reply
14
at 2. If Plaintiff seeks to use the records for other litigation, she must petition the superior court.
15
Entry of a protective order in this case governing the use of the juvenile records, as proposed by the
16
County Defendants, is reasonable.
17
In the reply, Plaintiff argues that the Court should compel individual County Defendants to
18
answer requests for production of documents and interrogatories. Plaintiff improperly raises the
19
issue of this written discovery in the reply. Further, the County Defendants note that Plaintiff agreed
20
that these discovery requests would be withdrawn (Kloeppel Decl. ¶¶ 3-5), so a motion to compel is
21
not appropriate.
22
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with respect to the juvenile case
23
file records only on the condition that Plaintiff enter into the protective order proposed by County
24
Defendants. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to written discovery as to individual County
25
Defendants is denied.
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents from the Williams Defendants
There are four document requests at issue:
2
1
No 21: A copy of all emails and written correspondence authored by you and
2
exchanged with any person affiliated with or employed by or an agent of CBS,
3
Paramount Pictures and the Dr. Phil Show.
4
No. 22: A copy of all emails and written correspondence sent to you by all persons
5
affiliated with, employed by or an agent of CBS, Paramount Pictures and the Dr. Phil
6
Show.
7
No. 41: A copy of all emails and written correspondence exchanged between you and
8
James Bragg and Christy Reihm.
9
No. 42: A copy of all emails and written correspondence exchanged between you and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Paul Hyppolite.
11
With respect to numbers 41 and 42, the Williams Defendants state in the opposition that on
12
March 10, 2014, they sent Plaintiff all emails and written correspondence responsive to these
13
requests. Plaintiff does not dispute this in the reply. Thus, as to these document requests, Plaintiff’s
14
motion to compel is denied as moot.
15
Plaintiff has not shown that documents responsive to numbers 21 and 22 are relevant to this
16
litigation. The motion to compel production of documents in response to these requests is denied
17
with prejudice.
18
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses from the Williams Defendants
19
Plaintiff filed this motion seeking interrogatory responses from the Williams Defendants,
20
arguing that Defendants had failed to serve any responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. In the
21
opposition, the Williams Defendants state that they responded to the interrogatories on March 31,
22
2014. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as moot.
23
Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery from BHC Sierra
24
Plaintiff filed two discovery motions against BHC Sierra. BHC Sierra did not oppose the
25
motions, but informed the Court that it provided the discovery sought by Plaintiff through the
26
motions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions are denied without prejudice if Plaintiff can show that
27
Defendants did not respond.
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
1
2
Dated: April 8, 2014
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?