Keilch v. Romero et al

Filing 54

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 52 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
FLORA KEILCH,

12

Plaintiff,

13

SUENIA ROMERO, MARSHELL TERRYBATTLE, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

15
16

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Re: Dkt. No. 52

Defendants.

17

19

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.

14

18

Case No. 5:15-cv-01526-LHK (HRL)

In this civil rights action, plaintiff Flora Keilch alleges that defendants wrongfully removed
her minor son, R.S.,1 from her custody, using a warrant obtained through material
misrepresentations and omissions. On June 24, the parties filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report
(DDJR) No. 1 because they disagree whether defendants should be permitted to depose two
physicians: Dr. Mason and Dr. Sarah Hunter. According to defendants, Dr. Mason reports to Dr.
Hunter and was the attending psychiatrist who oversaw R.S.’s care on three prior visits. Because
the requested testimony concerns psychiatric care, the doctors will not agree to appear for
deposition unless plaintiff consents. This court is told that, although plaintiff previously consented
to the release of R.S.’s medical records, as well as to the depositions of other doctors and medical
staff, plaintiff initially refused to consent to the depositions of Drs. Mason and Hunter on the

27
28

1

In the instant discovery report, the parties also refer to plaintiff’s son as R.J.

1

ground that defendants had exceeded the presumptive 10-deposition limit. Defendants say that

2

they have only taken eight depositions. Nevertheless, plaintiff maintains that the depositions are

3

irrelevant and violates R.S.’s privacy. And, because R.S. is not a party to this suit, plaintiff

4

contends that this court has no authority to permit the depositions to proceed. The matter is

5

deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration

6

of the parties’ arguments, this court grants defendants’ request for discovery.

7

The scope of pre-trial discovery is broad, and defendants have established that the

8

requested depositions are relevant. They point out that records produced in discovery suggest that

9

Dr. Mason and Dr. Hunter have information that may corroborate alleged misstatements made in
the warrant, as well as knowledge of communications with the Department of Family and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Children’s Services on the day R.J. was removed and placed in protective custody. Compelling

12

the depositions therefore comports with the liberal policy of discovery under the Federal Rules

13

and the truth-seeking function of such discovery. While there are legitimate privacy interests in

14

the testimony sought, the right to privacy is not absolute. Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165

15

F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D.Cal.1995). And, under the circumstances presented here, this court agrees

16

that plaintiff’s stated concerns about R.S.’s privacy are a red herring. Defendants note that

17

information about R.S.’s medical and psychological status have already been disclosed; his

18

medical records have been produced, with plaintiff’s consent; and, as noted above, several doctors

19

and medical staff have already been deposed. Further, defendants have agreed to designate the

20

testimony confidential, and there is a protective order limiting the use and dissemination of such

21

information.

22

Accordingly, defendants’ request for discovery is granted. The depositions of Drs. Mason

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

and Hunter shall proceed forthwith.2
SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: June 29, 2016

4
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
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
2

27
28

The present DDJR having been filed a week before the scheduled July 1, 2016 close of fact
discovery, this court addressed it as promptly as possible. If the subject depositions cannot be
completed within the time remaining for fact discovery, this court recommends that the fact
discovery period be extended for a reasonable time to permit the depositions to be completed.
3

1

5:15-cv-01526-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Aryn Paige Harris

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

Brett ONeill Terry

[e-mail]

4

Melissa R. Kiniyalocts [e-mail],
[e-mail]

5
6

Rebecca Mary Hoberg [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10

Robert Ross Powell [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Stephen H. Schmid [e-mail],
[e-mail]

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
4