Enwere v. Terman Apartments, LP et al

Filing 135

ORDER by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull Granting 115 Motion to Compel San Mateo County Health Department to Produce Documents Pursuant to Subpoena. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 1/7/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying the present motion. 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION CATHY ENWERE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TERMAN ASSOCIATES, L.P., dba ) TERMAN APARTMENTS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 07-1239 JF (PVT) ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CO M PEL SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH DEPA R TM EN T TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PU R SU A N T TO SUBPOENA On November 10, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel San Mateo County Health Department to Produce Documents Pursuant to Subpoena.1 Plaintiff opposed the motion. Non-Party San Mateo County Health Department ("San Mateo") submitted the subpoenaed records to the court in two sealed envelopes, along with a cover letter asserting the confidentiality of the records and asking the court to conduct and in camera review of the records for relevancy and confidentiality prior to release.2 This court issued an interim order, setting a deadline of December 16, 2008 for any party who objected to the in camera review to file a brief setting forth the basis for the objection. No objection was filed by any of the parties. The court also noted that, if Plaintiff filed an objection A copy of the cover letter shall be electronically filed herein. OR D E R, page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 to this order by December 23, 2008,3 the in camera review would automatically be stayed pending District Judge Fogel's ruling on Plaintiff's objection. Plaintiff did not file any such objection. Therefore, the court conducted the in camera review of the documents. Based on the court's in camera review, and the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to compel is GRANTED. San Mateo County Health Department ("SMCHD") shall promptly contact Defense counsel to set a mutually agreeable date and method for SMCHD to produce documents in compliance with the subpoena. The documents are relevant to Plaintiff's claims for emotional distress damages. As this court previously ruled, by alleging serious on-going mental and emotional distress, and seeking damages for those injuries, Plaintiff waived her right to privacy with respect to her mental health records to the extent her mental health information is relevant to this lawsuit. See, e.g., Doe v. City of Chula Vista, 196 F.R.D. 562, 569-70 (S.D. Cal. 1999). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, absent further order of the court, Defense counsel shall not disclose the documents to anyone other than any expert witness retained by Defendants to opine on issues related to Plaintiff's emotional distress claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until January 22, 2009 (ten court days) to file any objection to this order. The court notes that, unless and until Plaintiff either files an objection or obtains a stay,4 the provisions of this order govern disclosure of Plaintiff's mental health records by SMCHD. Dated: 1/7/09 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge 3 28 4 See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 72(a), 6(a)(2) & 6(d). Plaintiff has a request for time off from her case pending before District Judge Fogel. OR D E R, page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OR D E R, page 3 /s/ Donna Kirchner CORINNE LEW Courtroom Deputy for copies mailed on 1/7/09 Cathy Enwere 1263 Madera Ave. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Att'n: Keith Clausen San Mateo County Health Dep't 225 - 37th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 to: Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court's Electronic Case Filing system.

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?