Batts v. County of Santa Clara

Filing 275

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 185 plaintiff's Motion for Modification and Enforcement of Nonparty Subpoenas. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2010)

Download PDF
Batts v. County of Santa Clara Doc. 275 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LAILA BATTS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, PETER CRANDALL, CHRISTINA ARQUERO, and DOES 3-20, Defendants. / No. C08-00286 JW (HRL) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NONPARTY SUBPOENAS [Re: Docket No. 185] *E-FILED 09-14-2010* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Laila Batts claims that during her 10-day incarceration at the Elmwood Women's Facility ("Elmwood") from January 5-14, 2007, defendants failed to diagnose and provide appropriate medical care for her ectopic pregnancy. She seeks damages for alleged violation of her civil rights (42 U.S.C. 1983) and professional negligence. Batts served subpoenas seeking defendant Dr. Crandall's prior employment records. She also seeks records from several malpractice lawsuits reportedly filed against him several years ago, the most recent of which apparently was filed in 2002. She now moves to enforce the subpoenas. The subpoenaed nonparties -- the Hinshaw, Draa, et al. law firm, Good Samaritan Medical Group (aka San Jose Medical Group), and NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company -- oppose the motion. Defendants join in the nonparties' opposition. The matter was deemed appropriate for determination without oral argument. See CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this court denies the motion. Defendants and nonparties correctly note that the instant motion was not timely filed. See Civ. L.R. 26-2. Although this court excused plaintiff's tardiness (Docket No. 232), it appears that plaintiff has made other procedural missteps in connection with the instant motion. Most notable of these is her failure to meet-and-confer with the very entities whose documents are being sought. Batts' attempt to meet-and-confer with County counsel about these nonparty records is no substitute. And, this court rejects plaintiff's contention that she is not obliged to confer with nonparties prior to filing a motion seeking to compel the production of their records. In any event, Batts has failed to convince that the records sought are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.1 SO ORDERED. Dated: September 14, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 Although Batts contends that, by virtue of filing malpractice actions, the nonparty patients have waived their privacy rights, this court finds it unnecessary to rule on that issue. Nevertheless, the court notes that Batts has taken a somewhat different view with respect to defendants' efforts to compel documents pertaining to her that she claims is confidential. (See Docket No. 111). 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:08-cv-00286-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to: Aryn Paige Harris aryn.harris@cco.sccgov.org, anna.espiritu@cco.sccgov.org bmarsh@hinshaw-law.com, csimmers@hinshaw-law.com Barry Clement Marsh Blaise S. Curet bcuret@spcclaw.com Gregory Joseph Sebastinelli gregory.sebastinelli@cco.sccgov.org, marylou.gonzales@cco.sccgov.org Jeremy L. Friedman Stephen Ryan Wong jlfried@comcast.net swong@spcclaw.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?