Weiss v. City of Santa Rosa Police Department et al

Filing 114

ORDER re 110 , 111 In Camera Review of Plaintiff's Mental Health Records. The records do not require redaction, but are subject to the stipulated protective order. Defendants may retrieve the original records from the Oakland Clerk's Office between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM within 14 days of this order. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/31/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERRY L WEISS,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

11

Case No. 4:15-cv-01639-YGR (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING THE IN
CAMERA REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF'S
MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 110, 111

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On May 5, 2017, the undersigned ordered Defendants to subpoena Plaintiff Terry L.

14

Weiss’s mental health records and lodge them with the Court for the purposes of performing an in

15

camera review. (Dkt. No. 106.) On July 12 and 14, 2017, Defendants produced records obtained

16

from Jo Inhinger, MFT, Sylvia Shirikian, Psy.D, David Schneider, Ph.D, Steven Ranish, Ph.D,

17

Andrea Shelley, MD, and Laura Doty, Ph.D. (See Dkt. Nos. 110 & 111.)
Upon review of the records, the Court notes that not all documents identified in the minute

18
19

entries, and sought by the subpoena, appear to have been produced by the medical professionals,

20

including a report from Dr. Shelley, in which she purportedly opined that Plaintiff’s competency

21

would “not likely be restored.” (See Dkt. No. 106 at 2.) Notwithstanding, the Court finds that all

22

documents lodged are relevant to the issue of Plaintiff’s mental competency. Furthermore, none

23

of the mental health records were for private mental health services, but, rather, were connected to

24

her criminal case, which minimizes any privacy concerns. Moreover, Plaintiff stated that she has

25

no objection to Defendants obtaining copies of her mental health records. (See Dkt. No. 105 at 21-

26

22.)1

27
1

28

The parties are advised that the undersigned is not making any determination regarding
Plaintiff’s competency. Rather, this order only addresses whether the medical records obtained by

1

Accordingly, the Court finds that all subpoenaed mental health records may be produced to

2

Defendants without redaction, but are subject to the stipulated protective order currently in effect.

3

Defendants may retrieve the original mental health records from the Oakland Clerk’s Office, 1301

4

Clay Street, 4th Floor, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., within 14 days of this order. Defendants

5

are advised that the records may be destroyed if they are not timely retrieved.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

subpoena may be produced to Defendants, which has been done in an abundance of caution,
despite Plaintiff’s consent, due to Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant and that her mental
competency is at issue.
2