Hupp v. San Diego County District Attorney et al
Filing
159
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 133 Plaintiff's Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Quash Raymond Wetzel Subpoenas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 9/25/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PAUL HUPP,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SAN DIEGO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION TO
QUASH RAYMOND WETZEL SUBPOENAS
[ECF NO. 133]
17
On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Paul Hupp submitted a Notice of
18
Emergency Ex Parte Motion and Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Quash
19
Raymond Wetzel Subpoena; the Motion addresses two subpoeanas for
20
records [ECF No. 133].
21
under the subpoenas and set a briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s Ex
22
Parte Motion.
23
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief Supporting Emergency Ex Parte Motion
24
to Quash Raymond Wetzel Subpoena [ECF No. 136] was filed nunc pro
25
tunc to July 24, 2013; it adds a third subpoena to Hupp’s Motion to
26
Quash.
27
Wetzel filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash
28
Subpoena [ECF No. 137].
The Court stayed any production of records
(See Mins., July 24, 2013, ECF No. 134.)
On August 7, 2013, Defendants City of San Diego and Raymond
Plaintiff’s Reply was filed nunc pro tunc
1
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
to August 15, 2013 [ECF No. 144].
2
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3
I.
4
For the following reasons,
BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2012, Plaintiff Paul Hupp, proceeding pro se,
5
commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Compl. 1, ECF
6
No. 1.)
7
28, 2012 [ECF No. 64], naming as Defendants San Diego County, City
8
of San Diego, City of Beaumont, James Patrick Romo, Raymond Wetzel,
9
William Kiernan, Peter Myers, and Joseph Cargel.
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint was filed on August
(Third Am. Compl.
10
1, ECF No. 64.)
Hupp’s action arises from his contempt of court
11
charges and conviction in San Diego Superior Court in 2011.
12
id. at 4-5, 7-8.)
(See
Plaintiff alleges that in November 2010, Jeffrey Freedman1
13
14
obtained a three-year restraining order against Hupp in San Diego
15
Superior Court.
16
contempt charges against Hupp for sending letters to Freedman in
17
violation of the restraining order.
18
Kiernan, an attorney from the San Diego County Office of the
19
Assigned Counsel, was appointed to represent Hupp.
20
alleges that Kiernan failed to investigate the case or request
21
discovery, failed to communicate with Hupp, and that his lack of
22
preparation amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.
23
6-7.)
24
fingerprint tests on the letters and envelopes allegedly sent by
25
him, but Defendants wrongfully withheld this exculpatory forensic
(Id. at 4.)
In July 2011, Freedman brought
(Id. at 5.)
Defendant William
(Id.)
Hupp
(Id. at
Plaintiff also claims that Defendants performed DNA and
26
27
28
1
All claims against Defendant Freedman in this case were
dismissed on June 4, 2012 [ECF No. 35].
2
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
evidence until February 2012, when they produced the evidence in
2
another court case.
3
(Id. at 11-12.)
Plaintiff claims that he was wrongfully convicted based on
4
insufficient evidence and sentenced to twenty-five days in custody
5
and a $5,000 fine.
6
improperly denied him custody credits under the California Penal
7
Code section 4019.
8
9
(Id. at 7.)
Hupp alleges that the trial judge
(Id. at 8.)
On January 3, 2012, Hupp reported to the San Diego Sheriff’s
Department to serve his twenty-five day sentence.
(Id. at 9.)
10
Plaintiff claims that he told the Sheriff’s Department personnel
11
that they had to apply his custodial credits under California Penal
12
Code, but they refused to apply the section 4019 credits.
13
Hupp also claims that he was denied access to the law library and
14
prevented from filing legal papers.
15
(Id.)
(Id. at 10-11.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants never disclosed to him that
16
the San Diego District Attorney’s office, San Diego Police
17
Department, Deputy District Attorney Romo, and Defendant Wetzel
18
were investigating and assisting Deputy Attorney General Drcar
19
prosecute the November 2011 civil contempt proceedings against
20
Hupp.
21
disclose exculpatory DNA and fingerprint evidence obtained from the
22
letters Freedman received in violation of Plaintiff’s due process
23
rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
24
12.)
25
(Id. at 7, 11.)
Hupp also claims that Defendants failed to
(Id. at 11-
These allegations form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims for
26
violation of civil rights, conspiracy to withhold Brady evidence,
27
interference with legal mail and free speech, unlawful detention,
28
intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as gross
3
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
negligence in the hiring, training, supervision, and retention of
2
prosecutors and peace officers.
3
that Defendants’ actions caused him emotional and psychological
4
injuries, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, fright, fear, and
5
grief.
6
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages exceeding
7
$75,000, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
8
37.)
(Id. at 14, 20-21.)
9
10
II.
(See id. at 12-29.)
Hupp claims
In connection with his claims,
(Id. at 35-
LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion seeks to quash three subpoenas
11
served by Defendant Wetzel on the custodian of records at the San
12
Diego Sheriff’s Department.
13
Wetzel Subpoena 1,2 ECF No. 133; Pl.’s Supplemental Br. Supporting
14
Ex Parte Mot. Quash Raymond Wetzel Subpoena 2, ECF No. 136.)
15
argues that the subpoenas are overly broad, lack relevance, and the
16
records sought are not material.
17
Raymond Wetzel Subpoena 8, ECF No. 133.)
18
subpoenas constitute “an extreme invasion into the personal privacy
19
of Plaintiff.”
20
(See Pl.’s Ex Parte Mot. Quash Raymond
Hupp
(Pl.’s Ex Parte Mot. Quash
He also claims that the
(Id. at 9.)
A party may serve a subpoena commanding a nonparty “to produce
21
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things.”
22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C).
23
relevance requirements set forth in Rule 26(b) and may command the
24
production of documents which are “nonprivileged” and “relevant to
25
any party's claim or defense.”
26
information includes matter “reasonably calculated to lead to the
The subpoena is subject to the
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Relevant
27
2
28
Because Hupp’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion is not
consecutively paginated, the Court will cite to it using the page
numbers assigned by the Court’s ECF system.
4
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
discovery of admissible evidence.”
2
need not be admissible at trial as long as it appears reasonably
3
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4
“relevant matter” under Rule 26(b)(1) is any item that “bears on,
5
or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on,
6
any issue that is or may be in the case.”
7
v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).
8
9
10
11
Id.
The information sought
Id.
A
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc.
On a timely motion, a subpoena may be quashed if it “requires
disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception
or waiver applies . . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c)(3)(A)(iii).
12
A person withholding subpoenaed information under a
claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as
trial-preparation material must:
13
(i) expressly make the claim; and
14
(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents,
communications, or tangible things in a manner that,
without revealing information itself privileged or
protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
15
16
17
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(A).
18
same information from a party who withholds information otherwise
19
discoverable due to a claim of privilege.
20
26(b)(5)(A).
21
party or attorney requesting the discovery “before the earlier of
22
the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is
23
served.”
24
Rule 26(b) requires essentially the
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Any objection to a subpoena must be served on the
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B).
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants address what law should be
25
applied to Hupp’s claims.
Generally, in federal question cases,
26
privileges asserted in response to discovery requests are
27
determined under federal law, not the law of the forum state.
28
R. Evid. 501; United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989).
5
Fed.
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
Federal Rule of Evidence 501 also states that “in a civil case,
2
state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which
3
state law supplies the rule of decision.”
4
Fed. R. Evid. 501.
In his Complaint, Hupp alleges both a federal civil rights
5
claim and state law claims.
“[I]n federal question cases . . . in
6
which state law claims are also raised . . . , any asserted
7
privileges relating to evidence relevant to both state and federal
8
claims are governed by federal common law.”
9
al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.47[4], at 26-334.1 (3d ed.
6 James Wm. Moore et
10
2013); see Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 635 (N.D. Cal.
11
2003) (applying federal law of privilege to alleged violations of
12
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, and various state law claims).
13
Similarly, in Stallworth v. Brollini, 288 F.R.D. 439, 442 (N.D.
14
Cal. 2012), the court applied federal common law to resolve claims
15
of privilege in an action alleging § 1983 and state law claims.
16
Accordingly, federal common law will be applied to Hupp’s claims.
17
“State law may provide guidance, but it is not the law of the
18
circuit.”
19
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107783, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2010) (citing
20
Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 643-44 (C.D. Cal. 2005)).
21
Gorton v. Bick, Case No. 1:05–CV–00354–LJO–DLB PC, 2010
California law recognizes a constitutional right to privacy
22
in an individual’s medical history.
23
App. 4th 402, 440, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46, 72 (1996) (“[I]t is well
24
settled that the zone of privacy created by [article I, section 1
25
of the California Constitution] extends to the details of a
26
patient's medical and psychiatric history.”) (citing Cutter v.
27
Brownbridge, 183 Cal. App. 3d 836, 842, 228 Cal. Rptr. 545, 549
28
(1986), and Wood v. Superior Court, 166 Cal. App. 3d 1138, 1147,
6
See Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal.
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
212 Cal. Rptr. 811 (1985)); Bd. of Med. Quality Assurance v.
2
Gherardini, 93 Cal. App. 3d 669, 678, 156 Cal. Rptr. 55, 60 (1979)
3
(“[F]undamental to the privacy of medical information ‘is the
4
ability to control [its] circulation[.]’”) (alteration in original)
5
(citation omitted).
6
But this constitutional right to privacy is not absolute and
7
must be balanced against a compelling public interest, such as “the
8
legitimate interests of real parties in preparing their defense.”
9
Jones v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. App. 3d 534, 550, 174 Cal. Rptr.
10
148, 158 (1981); see Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D.
11
601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (discussing documents in employee’s
12
personnel files).
13
for mental injuries “unquestionably waive[s] [the] physician-
14
patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges as to all
15
information concerning the medical conditions which [he has] put in
16
issue . . . .”
17
P.2d 766, 768-69, 143 Cal. Rptr. 695, 697 (1978).
18
Thus, a California plaintiff who seeks recovery
Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844, 849, 574
In Carrig v. Kellogg USA Inc., Case No. C12–837RSM, 2013 U.S.
19
Dist. LEXIS 13560, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2013), the court
20
discussed federal law of waiver applicable to physician-patient and
21
psychotherapist-patient privileges.
22
23
24
25
District courts have adopted different approaches to
determine wether the patient has waived his or her
psychotherapist-patient privilege. Under the broad
approach, . . . a simple allegation of emotional distress
in a complaint constitutes waiver. Under the narrow
approach, . . . there must be an affirmative reliance on
the psychotherapist-patient communications before the
privilege will be deemed waived.
26
27
28
There is a middle ground . . . . Under this approach,
courts have generally found a waiver when the plaintiff
has done more than allege “garden-variety” emotional
distress.
7
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
Id. at *5-6 (internal citations omitted).
This Court agrees that a
2
waiver of privacy rights to mental health records should occur only
3
if a plaintiff assets “more than a garden-variety claim of
4
emotional distress.”
5
(S.D. Cal. 1995) (applying middle approach); see Fitzgerald v.
6
Cassil, 216 F.R.D. at 633, 638-39 (adopting narrow approach and
7
finding no waiver of privacy when plaintiff did not allege “cause
8
of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional
9
distress” or “specific psychiatric injury or disorder or unusually
Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 97
10
severe emotional distress extraordinary in light of the
11
allegations”).
12
III.
13
DISCUSSION
Defendant City of San Diego issued three subpoenas to the San
14
Diego Sheriff’s Department requesting production of various records
15
related to Plaintiff Paul Hupp, booking number 12500589.
16
Milligan Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. Quash Subpoena Attach. #2, at 3,3 ECF No.
17
137.)
18
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, 9621 Ridgehaven Ct., San
19
Diego, CA 92123, and seeks records and video recordings, namely
20
“[c]omplete records from the first date to the present, including
21
but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored
22
digitally and/or electronically: records in your possession,
23
custody, or control pertaining to this person.”
24
second subpoena is directed to the custodian of records, San Diego
25
County Sheriff’s Department, located at 5255 Mt. Etna Dr., San
(Decl.
The first subpoena is addressed to the custodian of records,
(Id. at 3-4.)
The
26
27
3
28
Because the attachment to the Declaration of Milligan is not
consecutively paginated, the Court will cite to it using the page
numbers assigned by the Court’s ECF system.
8
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
Diego, CA 92117, and seeks “photographs,” more specifically
2
described in the attachment as follows:
3
6
Complete photographs from the first date to the present,
including but not limited to any records/documents that
may be stored digitally and/or electronically: any and
all photographs or duplicate laser copies thereof
(photocopies are not acceptable) in your possession,
custody, or control (either received by you or taken by
you).
7
Booking #12500589.
4
5
8
(Id. at 7-8.)
9
records, San Diego County Sheriff’s Medical Records Department,
The third subpoena is addressed to the custodian of
10
5530 Overland Ave., Bldg. 5530, Ste. 370, San Diego, CA 92123, and
11
requests the production of “Billing Records; Photographs; Medical
12
Records; Mental Health Records; Dental Records; X-Rays/MRIs/CT
13
scans; Records; [and] Video Recording(s)”
14
attachment to the subpoena provides an exhaustive, albeit at times
15
repetitious, clarification of this request:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(Id. at 10.)
The
Complete medical records, billing records, and radiology
images from the first date of treatment to the present,
including but not limited to any records/documents that
nay be stored digitally and/or electronically: documents,
medical reports, doctor’s entries, nurse’s notes,
progress reports, cardiology reports, radiology reports,
x-ray reports, MRI reports, lab reports, pathology
reports, monitor strips, physical therapy records,
case history, emergency records, diagnosis, prognosis,
condition, admit and discharge records, charges, explanation
of benefits, payments, adjustments, write-offs, balances due,
itemized billing charges, X-rays, MRI’s, CT’s, myelograms,
tomograms, MRA’s PET scans, CAT scans, fluoroscopy, documents
including sign-out sheets or communications which demonstrate
that any items were checked out from or removed from your
facility, radiology reports, x-ray reports, MRI reports, CT
reports, myelogram reports, cardiology reports, and any other
radiology reports. All approved radiology images must be
produced on film or on a DICOM compliant CD only. Prior to
duplication, please provide a breakdown of all radiology
images in your possession, custody, or control. All emails
between physicians and the patient regarding physical
complaints, symptoms, and treatment, including secure
messages.
28
9
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
Complete dental records from the first date of treatment
to the present, including but not limited to any
records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or
electronically: dental records/reports, radiology
reports, notes, correspondence, prescription slips,
telephone messages, diagnostic reports, and itemized
statements of the billing charges. All emails between
physicians and the patient regarding physical complaints,
symptoms, and treatment, including secure messages.
2
3
4
5
6
Complete mental health records from the first date of
treatment to the present, including but not limited to
any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or
electronically: medical records pertaining to any and all
care, treatment, and/or examinations, notes, records, and
reports of psychotherapy diagnosis, evaluation, and
treatment, and any other records relating to mental
health. All emails between physicians and the patient
regarding physical complaints, symptoms, and treatment,
including secure messages.
7
8
9
10
11
Booking #12500589
12
To include any and all records from San Diego County Jail
Medical Records; William Didier, Chief, Medical Records;
and 8525 Gibbs Dr., Ste. 303, San Diego, CA 92123.
13
14
15
(Id. at 11.)
16
Plaintiff objects to the production of his records on the
17
grounds that the subpoenas are overly broad, do not seek relevant
18
evidence, invade his privacy, and are protected from disclosure by
19
the physician-patient privilege.
20
Parte Mot. Quash 9-10, ECF No. 133.)
21
information requested is not relevant to any defense Wetzel might
22
have.
23
“‘fishing expedition’ into the personal, private and confidential
24
life of Plaintiff in order to harass and intimidate him . . . .”
25
(Id. at 9.)
26
concerns about the scope of the information sought in the
27
subpoenas, Defendants have not agreed to limit their request.
28
at 10-11.)
(Pl.’s Mem. P. & A. Supp. Ex
Hupp argues that the
Plaintiff contends that Defendants are conducting a
Hupp points out that although he expressed the
(Id.
Plaintiff therefore seeks to quash the subpoenas in
10
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
their entirety, and asks the Court to sanction Defendant Wetzel.
2
(Id. at 11-12.)
3
In response, Defendants City of San Diego and Raymond Wetzel,
4
aka Charlie Wetzel, argue that “Plaintiff has placed his medical
5
records at issue[,]” which justifies the intrusion into his
6
privacy.
7
that Hupp’s medical records are relevant to whether his alleged
8
emotional distress may have been caused by something other than
9
Defendants’ actions, such as any pre-existing medical or
(Defs.’ Opp’n Mot. Quash 2, ECF No. 137.)
(Id. at 2-3.)
They argue
10
psychological issues.
Defendants claim that
11
Plaintiff waived any privacy rights he normally would have by
12
alleging emotional distress, and fairness dictates they be allowed
13
access to Hupp’s medical records.
14
that the subpoenas seek a “variety of different categories of
15
documents, but nothing that is unusual in a personal injury case.”
16
(Id. at 4.)
17
events alleged in the pleadings occurred while Hupp was housed at
18
the San Diego County Jail, any medical treatment he received while
19
there is relevant to the case.
20
privacy concerns can be properly addressed by a narrowly-drawn
21
protective order.
(Id. at 3-4.)
They acknowledge
Defendants also point out that because some of the
(Id.)
Finally, they argue that any
(Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff replies that to the extent privacy is waived by
22
23
bringing the suit, the waiver applies to the matters directly
24
related to the litigation.
25
argues that Defendants failed to show a compelling interest in
26
accessing his complete medical records and photographs.
27
3.)
28
placing his medical condition at issue . . . .”
(Pl.’s Reply 2, ECF No. 144.)
Hupp
(Id. at 2-
He also claims that he “has not waived any privilege by
11
(Id. at 4.)
Hupp
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
contends that because Defendants fail to show any relevance of his
2
medical records to this litigation, the Court should grant his
3
request to quash the subpoenas.
(Id. at 4-6.)
4
To the extent Plaintiff objects to the subpoenas on the
5
relevance ground, the Court overrules his objection in part.
6
his fifth cause of action, Hupp alleges a claim for intentional
7
infliction of emotional distress against Defendants San Diego
8
Police Department and Wetzel.
9
64.)
In
(Third Am. Compl. 20-21, ECF No.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants brought civil contempt of
10
court charges against him with intent to “harass, annoy,
11
intimidate, incite, threaten and instill fear . . . .”
12
13.)
13
[Defendants]’s actions, including, but not limited to, the
14
following, to wit: (1) humiliation; (2) loss of liberty; (3)
15
emotional distress; (4) psychological distress; (5) losses of the
16
safety, pleasure, joy and vitalities of life that are of a
17
continuing nature.”
18
compensation for emotional damages that he allegedly suffered
19
because of Defendants' actions.
20
(Id. at
He claims that he “suffered injuries as a proximate cause of
(Id. at 14.)
He seeks over $75,000 in
(Id. at 35.)
By alleging a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
21
distress and seeking damages for mental and emotional injuries,
22
Hupp is seeking more than garden-variety emotional distress
23
damages.
24
distress and therefore waived his privacy rights with respect to
25
his medical records.
26
mental or emotional condition and seeks damages for mental or
27
emotional injuries waives the right to privacy with respect to
28
those issues.
Plaintiff has placed at issue the extent of his emotional
A plaintiff who raises issues concerning his
See Schwenk v. City of Alameda, No. C-07-00849 SBA
12
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
(EDL), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18836, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11,
2
2011) (denying motion to compel release of mental health records
3
where plaintiff claimed garden variety emotional distress damages
4
and did not assert claims for intentional or negligent infliction
5
of emotional distress); EEOC v. Vail Corp., Civil Action No. 07-cv-
6
02035-REB-KLM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86046, at *7 (D. Colo. Oct. 2,
7
2008) (finding that mental condition was not “in controversy”
8
absent a separate claim for intentional infliction of emotional
9
distress or “a damages claim for severe and emotionally devastating
10
harm”) (citation omitted).
11
the records that are clearly relevant and directly related to his
12
mental and emotional injuries.
13
3d 415, 427, 467 P.2d 557, 564, 85 Cal. Rptr. 829, 836 (1970)
14
(“[T]he patient-litigant exception of section 1016 of the
15
[California] Evidence Code compels disclosure of only those matters
16
which the patient himself has chosen to reveal by tendering them in
17
litigation.”).
18
Hupp's waiver, however, only applies to
See, e.g., In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal.
In addition to Hupp’s mental health records, Defendants’
19
subpoenas seek production of his dental records, billing
20
statements, radiology and lab reports, and many other items of
21
information not directly related to his claim of intentional
22
infliction of emotional distress or any other claim.
23
they argue that complete medical records are discoverable because
24
Plaintiff’s alleged emotional injury may have been caused by
25
something other than Defendants’ actions, their speculation is not
26
sufficient to warrant disclosure.
27
28
To the extent
In this case, Hupp has placed his psychological condition at
issue only to the extent it was caused by Defendants’ actions.
13
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
Unlike a typical personal injury case, Plaintiff does not allege a
2
physical injury caused by Defendants that required medical
3
treatment.
4
civil contempt of court charges violated his civil rights and
5
caused him emotional distress.
6
discovery requests are overbroad.
7
to Quash, they fail to explain how Hupp’s entire medical record is
8
relevant to the claims in this case.
9
Instead, he claims that Defendants’ conduct in bringing
As currently stated, Defendants’
In opposing the Ex Parte Motion
Plaintiff has not waived his privacy rights with regard to his
10
complete medical record by bringing a claim for intentional
11
infliction of emotional distress.
12
P.2d at 779, 143 Cal. Rptr. at 707.
13
timely objection to such a disclosure by bringing this Ex Parte
14
Motion.
15
Defendants are entitled to reasonable discovery that will show the
16
nature and possible causes of Hupp’s emotional injury, their
17
request for the array of medical records, doctors’ entries and
18
reports, nurses’ notes, messages, images and video records is
19
overbroad and must be limited to the information proximately
20
related to the causes of action alleged.
21
Britt, 20 Cal. 3d at 863-64, 574
Additionally, Hupp has made a
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B).
Therefore, although
Accordingly, Defendants’ first subpoena addressed to the San
22
Diego County Sheriff’s Department, 9621 Ridgehaven Ct., San Diego,
23
CA 92123, seeking records and video recordings, is limited to
24
records reflecting Hupp’s mental health condition.
25
production of any photographs under Defendants’ second subpoena
26
directed to the custodian of records at the 5255 Mt. Etna Dr., San
27
Diego, CA 92117, is hereby limited to photographs of Plaintiff that
28
reflect his mental health condition, if any.
14
Similarly,
Defendants’ third
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
subpoena addressed to San Diego County Sheriff’s Medical Records
2
Department, 5530 Overland Ave., Bldg. 5530, Ste. 370, San Diego, CA
3
92123, which seeks “Billing Records; Photographs; Medical Records;
4
Mental Health Records; Dental Records; X-Rays/MRIs/CT scans;
5
Records; [and] Video Recording(s)” is modified as follows: (1) the
6
request in the subpoena is stricken except the words “Mental Health
7
Records”; (2) the first two paragraphs of Attachment A are stricken
8
in their entirety.
9
is modified as follows:
10
The remaining paragraph three in Attachment A
15
Complete mental health records from the first date of
treatment to the present, including but not limited to
any mental health records/documents that may be stored
digitally and/or electronically: medical records
pertaining to any and all mental health care, treatment,
and/or examinations, notes, records, and reports of
psychotherapy diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment, and
any other records relating to mental health. All emails
between physicians and the patient regarding physical or
mental complaints, symptoms, and treatment, including
secure messages.
16
Booking #12500589.
17
18
To include any and all records from San Diego County Jail
Medical Records; William Didier, Chief, Medical Records;
and 8525 Gibbs Dr., Ste. 303, San Diego, CA 92123.
19
IV. CONCLUSION
11
12
13
14
20
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Ex Parte
21
Motion to Quash the subpoenas to the extent they seek records not
22
related to Hupp’s mental or emotional injuries.
23
the Ex Parte Motion to Quash the subpoenas in any other respect.
24
Any production under the subpoenas must be consistent with this
The Court DENIES
25
26
27
28
15
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
1
Order and limited to Plaintiff’s mental health records as discussed
2
herein.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2013
____________________________
Ruben B. Brooks
United States Magistrate Judge
5
6
cc:
Judge Curiel
All Parties of Record
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\_1983\HUPP0492\Order re Motion to Quash 2.wpd
12cv0492 GPC(RBB)
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?