Brooks v. Hinzman et al
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part 34 Defendants' Motion for In Camera Inspection; granting in part 41 Plaintiff's Motion for In Camera Inspection. See Memorandum and Order for details. The parties must disclose the agency records in each party's possession consistent with the Memorandum and Order no later than 4/8/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 3/17/14. (sj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHAYLA BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANINE HINZMAN, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-2410-EFM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the separate motions by defendants
Hinzman and Achatz (Doc. 34) and by plaintiff (Doc. 41) for an in camera inspection and
production of agency records. Consistent with the parties’ stipulated Protective Order,1
the parties submitted agency records of the Kansas Department for Children and Families
(“DCF”) to the court for in camera inspection as required by K.S.A. § 38-2212(e). The
court must determine whether the documents “are necessary for the proceedings of the
court and otherwise admissible as evidence” and “specify the terms of disclosure and
impose appropriate limitations.”2 After its review, the court outlines the terms by which
the documents must be disclosed.
1
2
Prot. Order, Doc. 24.
K.S.A. § 38-2212(e).
Defendants Hinzman and Achatz’s motion (Doc. 38)
Defendants Hinzman and Achatz submitted to the court those DCF agency records
that are in their possession. For ease of reference, the court uses the Bates numbers
assigned by defendants to identify those documents.
The court finds that the following documents should not be produced to any
party, for the reasons specified below:
DCF000424-426: These pages contain a discussion of how the agency is to
manage an ongoing DCF investigation in concert with a pending lawsuit. These
communications are deemed attorney-client privileged and must not be produced.
DCF000431-434: These agency records relate to an individual with no ties to
plaintiff or her family. The documents appear to have been placed in the DCF file
in error and are irrelevant to this case.
DCF000862-966: These records contain allegations of abuse of one of plaintiff’s
children by an unrelated minor while the child was at daycare. These documents
are neither relevant nor necessary to this case and would be inadmissible at trial.
DCF000753: This document is a photocopy of a non-party’s drivers’ license and
Social Security card. Neither the TFI defendants3 nor plaintiff address this
document in their briefing, and the court is unable to determine the relevance of
the information. Therefore, the court finds that this document is neither relevant
nor necessary to this case and would be inadmissible at trial.
The following documents should be produced because the documents are
necessary to the current proceedings of this court and otherwise admissible as evidence.4
3
The “TFI defendants” include defendants Nicole Wolf, Jessica Geelen, Mary Kay Talley, and
TFI Family Services, Inc.
4
See K.S.A. § 38-2212(e).
2
For ease of discussion, the documents are considered in the categories used by the parties
and the limitations on disclosure for each group are outlined below.
1. Information and statements made by plaintiff’s children to their
therapists, social workers, or law enforcement
Defendants Hinzman and Achatz possess documents which contain information
and statements made by plaintiff’s children to therapists, social workers and law
enforcement. Defendants claim that allegations exist regarding possible retaliation to the
children for statements made to those individuals.
However, the parties agree that
production of any documents or the information contained in those documents as
“attorneys’ eyes only” strikes the appropriate balance between disclosure of relevant
information and the protection of the children. Therefore, the information should be
disclosed only to counsel for each party. If any party wishes to later disclose such
information, or use it in any deposition, motion, or trial, the party must seek leave of the
court to do so.
2. Portions of Kansas Standard Offense Reports that are not public record
Agency records numbered DCF000513-518 and DCF001740-744 contain nonpublic portions of separate Kansas Standard Offense reports involving plaintiff and/or her
children. These documents are confidential under K.S.A. § 45-221(a)(10) and may only
be disclosed pursuant to a court order.5 The parties have agreed that these documents are
relevant to this matter, and that disclosure of the documents as “attorneys’ eyes only”
5
See Williams v. McKamie, 2005 WL 1397381, at *1 (D. Kan. June 13, 2005).
3
strikes an appropriate balance between the release of relevant information and the
protection of the individuals named in the reports. Any party later wishing to disclose
such information or use it in any deposition, motion, or trial must first seek leave of the
court.
3. Medical records of plaintiff’s child
Documents numbered DCF001405-410 contain medical records of one of
plaintiff’s children. Hinzman and Achatz raise privacy concerns regarding the disclosure
of the records to any person other than plaintiff. The TFI defendants argue that any
physician-patient privilege has been waived and/or that the HIPAA privacy rules6 do not
apply. Plaintiff did not address these records in her response.
The court agrees with the TFI defendants that the HIPAA rules do not prevent the
release of this information because the defendants are not covered entities prohibited
from disclosure.7 However, the court finds that the physician-patient privilege does apply
to these records.
Disclosure to a third party does not waive the patient-physician
privilege “when such disclosure . . . was necessary to accomplish the purpose for which
the physicians were consulted.”8 Here, the records were disclosed to DCF by the child’s
physician and came into the possession of Hinzman and Achatz as employees of DCF for
the purpose of protection of the patient, a minor child.
6
Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act of 1996 and regulations thereof which set
forth the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. 164.512.
7
See 45 C.F.R. 160.103, defining “covered entity” as a health plan, a health care clearinghouse,
or a health care provider.
8
Phillips v. Medtronic, Inc., 130 F.R.D. 136, 142-43 (D. Kan. 1990).
4
Because the privilege has not been waived, the medical records of plaintiff’s child
found in DCF001405-410 may be disclosed only to plaintiff as legal representative of the
minor child. If plaintiff elects to disclose these records to the TFI defendants, she may do
so by executing the proper release.
4. Information identifying reporters of suspected abuse
Defendants Hinzman and Achatz argue that documents containing information,
such as addresses and phone numbers, which could be used to identify the reporters of
suspected child abuse should not be disclosed.9 The TFI defendants agree that any
identifying data should be redacted, but request that both the number of these individuals
and the number of reports made by each individual should also be released. Plaintiff
argues that the identifying information is relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1) and must be disclosed. However, the proper standard for disclosure of agency
records is the more restrictive criterion found in K.S.A. § 38-2212.
The overarching guideline for disclosure under K.S.A. § 38-2212 is to “provid[e]
access only to persons or entities with a need for information that is directly related to
achieving the purposes of this code.”10 The purposes of the Revised Kansas Code for
Care of Children are outlined in ten “policies of the state.”11 One of those policies is to
9
Defendants Hinzman and Achatz do not possess the names of the reporting individuals.
K.S.A. § 38-2212(a).
11
K.S.A. § 38-2201(b).
10
5
“encourage the reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect.”12 To that end, the Code
reiterates the prohibition against identification of reporters.13
Identification of the specific reporters could have a chilling effect on the reporting
of suspected abuse or neglect and contravene the purpose of the code. However, given
the plaintiff’s family’s multiple encounters with DCF, the court agrees that disclosure of
the number of different reporters could provide an enhanced understanding of the history
between the parties. Therefore, all information which would allow a person to identify
the reporter should be redacted from production. Hinzman and Achatz shall identify each
reporter by number, along with the number of reports that each individual made to
DCF.14
5. All other documents
Plaintiff asserts that defendants Hinzman and Achatz may be in possession of
other documents which were not otherwise categorized in the briefing and could have
been inadvertently withheld. After its review of defendants’ extensive “Catalog of DCF
Agency Files” and the associated records, the court is satisfied that defendants have
submitted all agency documents in their possession for in camera review and court-
12
K.S.A. § 38-2201(b)(5).
See K.S.A. § 38-2212(c) (prohibiting disclosure of any information “which identifies a
reporter of a child who is alleged or adjudicated to be a child in need of care.”); see also K.S.A. §
38-2212(d) (prohibiting identification of a reporter when agency records are disclosed to the
Kansas legislature or to the public under limited circumstances).
14
For example, a reporter who made 3 separate reports could be identified as “Reporter #1,
report 1 of 3.”
13
6
ordered disclosure. Each party is reminded of its duty to supplement as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).
Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 41)
Plaintiff requests that all agency documents in her possession be disclosed, subject
to certain restrictions:
that disclosures comply with the Protective Order and be
designated as “attorneys’ eyes only.” Plaintiff also seeks the redaction of all social
security numbers and all names of children. Although the defendants generally have no
objection to these limitations, the TFI defendants request that the children be identified,
at a minimum, by initials so that the parties can discern which child is the subject.
Upon review of both motions and the associated records, the court notes that a
majority of plaintiff’s records were generated by DCF and are therefore contained in the
agency records submitted by defendants. For the sake of consistency and for the reasons
specified above, plaintiff’s records must be produced in the same manner as those
disclosed by defendants. Specifically, the Kansas Standard Offense reports numbered as
plaintiff’s 211-234 are subject to the same limitations described in section 2 above and
should be produced to counsel only.
For purposes of consistency and to avoid undue burden on the parties, the parties
are not required to redact the children’s names from the documents produced pursuant to
this order. Because the documents submitted by plaintiff are already in the possession of
defendants, redaction at this point is impractical. Additionally, all documents produced
pursuant to this order are limited by the Protective Order as discussed below. However,
7
the parties are cautioned to strictly comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 regarding privacy
protection for any documents disclosed pursuant to this order which the parties later seek
to include in any public filings during this litigation.
Records submitted by DCF
On March 10, 2014, without formal motion, the court received records from DCF
on behalf of defendant TFI Family Services for an in camera inspection. The records
submitted by DCF are necessary for these proceedings and are otherwise admissible as
evidence.
Because DCF did not request limitations on the records’ disclosure, as
required by the parties’ Protective Order,15 all records should be produced. However, all
limitations established above for the agency records produced by other parties are
extended to the DCF records to the extent applicable.
Limitations applicable to all agency records
Under K.S.A. § 38-2212(e), the court must impose appropriate limitations on any
disclosure. The parties are therefore reminded that all documents produced pursuant to
this order are subject to the Protective Order governing this case.
The parties are
instructed to strictly comply with all terms of the Protective Order, including the
following:
“Confidential Information” may be reviewed by the parties with their
attorneys of record, but the information shall not be copied or disseminated
to the parties for their personal use, nor shall any party have the right to
maintain a copy of the “Confidential Information” for their personal use.
The only persons who shall retain a copy of the “Confidential Information”
15
See Prot. Order, Doc. 24 at 4.
8
during the course of this litigation, unless otherwise ordered by this Court,
are the parties’ respective counsel of record.16
Compliance will ensure that the sensitive agency information remains confidential and
the parties are cautioned to adhere to those restrictions in production of this information.
All parties address the redaction of social security numbers contained within the
agency records. The parties were previously directed to redact social security numbers
during the January 28, 2014 phone conference,17 but the parties submitted some
documents with unredacted social security numbers for the ease of the court’s in camera
review. The parties are ordered to properly redact all social security numbers before
producing documents to the other parties and to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 in future
filings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties must disclose the agency
records in each party’s possession, applying the limitations set forth above, no later than
April 8, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 17th day of March, 2014.
/S Karen M. Humphreys
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
Prot. Order, Doc. 24, at 5.
See Order on Status Conference, Doc. 33.
9
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?