Hardin v. Mendocino Coast District Hospital et al

Filing 278

REDACTED Discovery Order re 211 Discovery Order. Unredacted version under seal at ECF No. 245. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 9/23/2019. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ELLEN HARDIN,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)

v.
MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT
HOSPITAL, et al.,

DISCOVERY ORDER (PUBLIC
REDACTED VERSION OF ECF NO.
245)
Re: Dkt. No. 211

Defendants.
14
15

Defendant Mendocino Coast District Hospital hired attorney D’Anne L. Gleicher of

16

WG+R Law Group to investigate and prepare a report about complaints of harassment made by

17

Plaintiff Ellen Hardin and another employee, Business Office Manager Cindy Richards. In

18

general, reports such as this are attorney-client privileged. Here, MCDH “concedes that the

19

privilege has been waived with regard to investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints of harassment in

20

the Gleicher report,” ECF No. 191-4 at 1, because it intends to rely on Gleicher’s investigation as

21

a defense in this case. So, MCDH has produced a redacted version of the report that omits the

22

portion discussing Richards’ complaint. More recently, however, Hardin has put the investigation

23

of Richards’ complaint at issue, and in response “Defendant MCDH wishes to rely on its

24

investigation and, accordingly, waives the attorney client privilege with respect to the

25

investigation into Ms. Richards’ complaint.” Id. at 2.

26

With privilege out of the way, MCDH nonetheless observes that producing the entire

27

report unredacted is potentially invasive of Richards’ privacy. As the Court has observed in prior

28

orders, privacy concerns require weighing the relevance and importance of the evidence at issue

1

against an employee’s legitimate expectations of privacy. Here, that weighing counsels decisively

2

in favor of producing the entire report unredacted. [REDACTED]

3

It’s true that producing the entire report unredacted implicates Richards’ privacy to some

4

extent. [REDACTED] Further, there is a protective order in this case, ECF No. 66, and the Court

5

ORDERS that the Gleicher report is “confidential” within the meaning of the protective order.

6

That should be sufficient to protect Richards’ privacy interests while allowing Hardin access to

7

relevant and important evidence. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS MCDH to produce the

8

Gleicher report unredacted in its entirety.

9

The next question is what to do about the exhibits to the report. MCDH states that “[i]n
the spirit of cooperation, Defendant is willing to produce the exhibits to the Gleicher Report if so

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ordered by the Court, but would appreciate specific guidance from the Court regarding whether

12

confidential third party and patient information and attorney-client privileged communications

13

may be redacted from the produced exhibits.” ECF No. 191-4 at 3. The answer is yes, MCDH

14

may redact those items from the produced exhibits. With those important exceptions, the Court

15

ORDERS MCDH to produce the exhibits to the Gleicher Report.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: September 23, 2019

19
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2