The Estate of Ruben Nunez et al v. County of et al

Filing 239

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 229 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and for Sanctions. As provided herein, Defendant County is ORDERED to produce excerpts of any CPMG Quarterly Reports or any CPMG Psychiatr ic Peer/Record Reviews in its possession to the extent that they refer to the treatment and death of Ruben Nunez and/or refer to Drs. Naranjo and/or Hansen within 14 days of this Order. The Court declines to issue an order to show cause why Defendant County should be sanctioned at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 12/13/17. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

THE ESTATE OF RUBEN NUNEZ
by and through its successor-ininterest LYDIA NUNEZ, ALBERT
NUNEZ, and LYDIA NUNEZ,
Plaintiffs,

14
15

v.

16

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
CORRECTIONAL PHYSICIANS
MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al.,

17
18

Case No.: 16cv1412-BEN-MDD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT’S
ORDER (ECF NO. 211) AND FOR
AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING SANCTIONS
[ECF No. 229]

Defendants.

19
20
21
22

BACKGROUND

23

Once again, the Court must attempt to clean up a mess caused entirely

24

by Defendant County of San Diego’s failure to identify properly documents in

25

its possession subject to discovery requests by Plaintiffs. This matter has

26

been the subject of several discovery disputes between Plaintiffs, Defendant

27

County of San Diego and Defendant Correctional Physician’s Medical Group,
1
16cv1412-BEN-MDD

1

Inc. (“CPMG”). (ECF Nos. 192, 210, 211). The documents at issue first were

2

identified as “Psychiatric Summary Reports” by Defendant County in

3

connection with a discovery dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendant County

4

of San Diego filed on September 1, 2017. (ECF No. 176). The Psychiatric

5

Summary Reports were described as follows:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Although the County has declined to produce documents responsive to
Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (Set Two), nos. 39 and 41 (the last
four items on the privilege log, CSD04190 – CSD04194, each entitled
“Psychiatric Summary Monitoring Report”), it has done so because it
believes these documents implicate the rights of third parties, namely
defendants CPMG, Dr. Naranjo, and Dr. Hansen. CPMG objects to the
County’s release of the Psychiatric Summary Monitoring Reports to
Plaintiffs and has asserted this objection on behalf of CPMG, Dr.
Naranjo, and Dr. Hansen. Because the Psychiatric Summary
Monitoring Reports are at issue in the Plaintiffs’ forthcoming joint
discovery motion with CPMG, Plaintiffs respectfully direct the Court’s
attention to that joint motion with respect to these documents. See
Declaration of Grace Jun at ¶¶ 6 – 11.
(ECF No. 176 at 3). Specifically, Ms. Jun declared:
During our meeting, Mr. Kish [counsel for Defendant County] informed
me that four separate documents, each entitled “Psychiatric Monitoring
Summary Report” for a different time period, implicated the privileges
and privacy rights of third-parties, including Defendants CPMG, Dr.
Naranjo, and Dr. Hansen. Mr. Kish further informed me that the
County had no objection to producing these documents to Plaintiffs
pursuant to a protective order, but the County was concerned about the
effect of third-parties' rights and privilege. The County identified the
Psychiatric Monitoring Summary Reports as documents responsive to
Plaintiffs' RFP nos. 39 and 41.

24

(ECF No. 176-3 at ¶7). The Court was informed that Plaintiffs and CPMG

25

would bring a further motion before the Court regarding these “Psychiatric

26

Summary Reports.” Accordingly, the Court did not address these documents

27
2
16cv1412-BEN-MDD

1

in resolving the dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendant County. (See ECF

2

No. 186).

3

The discovery dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendant Correctional

4

Physicians Medical Group, Inc. (“CPMG”) was filed on September 15, 2017.

5

(ECF No. 190). That motion, among other things, presented a dispute

6

regarding “Quarterly Reports” created by CPMG but provided to Defendant

7

County. At that point, Plaintiffs and Defendant County believed that the

8

Psychiatric Summary Reports withheld by Defendant County were “the same

9

as the “Quarterly Report” documents, different only in name.” (ECF No. 190

10

at 11 n.2; ECF No. 233 at 2).1 On September 21, 2017, the Court determined

11

that one of the Quarterly Reports was relevant and ordered the production of

12

that Quarterly Report by CPMG to Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 192 at 3-5)
On October 25, 2017, Plaintiffs moved ex parte for an Order clarifying

13
14

the Court’s September 21 Order. (ECF No. 210). Plaintiffs asserted that the

15

County continued to refuse to produce the Psychiatric Summary Reports

16

without explanation. (Id.). On October 26, 2017, without waiting for a

17

response from the County, this Court ordered the production of the

18

Psychiatric Summary Reports, stating:
In issuing the Order regarding the underlying discovery dispute 192 ,
the Court was under the impression that the Psychiatric Summary
Reports were part of the Quarterly Reports at issue. See 190 at 10-11.
The Court ordered those documents produced. Accordingly, the
Psychiatric Summary Reports must be produced to Plaintiffs within 5
business days absent agreement by the parties or a filed opposition by
Defendants and further Order of the Court.

19
20
21
22
23
24

(ECF No. 211). On October 30, 2017, the County filed its Opposition in which

25
26
27

The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original pagination
throughout.
1

3
16cv1412-BEN-MDD

1

it admitted that it incorrectly identified the Psychiatric Summary Reports as

2

the same as the Quarterly Reports received from CPMG. (ECF No 218 at 2).

3

In fact, according to the County, the Psychiatric Summary Reports were

4

prepared by its staff and not by CPMG. (Id.). The Court overruled the

5

County’s objections to production of these Psychiatric Summary Reports and

6

ordered them to be provided to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 210).

7

That gets us to today. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November

8

20, 2017, seeking an order compelling Defendant County to produce CPMG

9

Quarterly Reports in its possession. (ECF No. 229). Defendant County

10

responded on November 28, 2017. (ECF No. 233). Plaintiff replied on

11

November 30, 2017. (ECF No. 235). Defendant County filed a further

12

response on December 6, 2017. (ECF No. 237). In its responsive pleadings,

13

Defendant County acknowledges that it has produced the County’s

14

Psychiatric Summary Reports, declines to produce CPMG Quarterly Reports

15

as that matter was addressed by the Court on September 21, 2017, but now

16

has identified new documents, “Psychiatric Peer/Record Review(s),”

17

completed by CPMG regarding CPMG’s medical providers. (ECF No. 233 at 5

18

n.2; ECF No. 233-1 at ¶ 4). Defendant County has declined to produce those

19

documents but has offered them for in camera review. As a consequence of

20

Defendant County’s intransigence, Plaintiffs seek sanctions.

21
22

DISCUSSION
Having analyzed and ruled on this dispute repeatedly, the Court will

23

not engage in a further rehash of its reasons for ordering certain documents

24

to be disclosed. Plaintiffs accuse Defendant County of gamesmanship and

25

has good reason to do so. The Court is of the impression, however, that it is

26

not gamesmanship that got us here, it is a lack of diligence and competence.

27

Defendant County should have properly investigated and identified the
4
16cv1412-BEN-MDD

1

documents in its possession prior to the dispute on September 1, 2017. In

2

reviewing the docket in connection with this dispute, the Court notes that the

3

County’s privilege log identifies the Psychiatric Summary Reports as created

4

by the County Sheriff’s Medical Division. (See ECF No. 176-2 at 4). Counsel

5

for Defendant County, for some reason, misidentified those records as being

6

Quarterly Reports provided to the County by CPMG. The Court is not

7

convinced that the misidentification was intentional but it does reflect a

8

cavalier attitude that is troubling.

9

Compounding the lack of diligence that resulted in the misidentification

10

of the County’s Psychiatric Summary Reports as being the same as the

11

Quarterly Reports prepared by CPMG, we now have the late discovery of

12

“Psychiatric Peer/Record Review(s)” purportedly created by CPMG but in the

13

possession of Defendant County. As the Court found regarding CPMG

14

Quarterly Reports, these records cannot be privileged inasmuch as they were

15

provided to the County. (See ECF No. 192 at 3-5). The Court declines to

16

review the records in camera but will order that these records, regardless of

17

whether they are Quarterly Reports or Psychiatric Peer/Record Reviews, be

18

disclosed to Plaintiffs to the extent that they refer to Ruben Nunez’s

19

treatment and death and/or refer to Defendants Drs. Naranjo and/or Hansen.

20

As the County’s conduct appears more incompetent than intentional,

21

the Court declines to issue an order to show cause why Defendant County

22

should be sanctioned.

23
24

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

25

Defendant County is ORDERED to produce excerpts of any CPMG

26

Quarterly Reports or any CPMG Psychiatric Peer/Record Reviews in its

27

possession to the extent that they refer to the treatment and death of Ruben
5
16cv1412-BEN-MDD

1

Nunez and/or refer to Drs. Naranjo and/or Hansen within 14 days of this

2

Order. The Court declines to issue an order to show cause why Defendant

3

County should be sanctioned at this time.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 13, 2017

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
6
16cv1412-BEN-MDD