Metzger et al v. Harborview Medical Center et al

Filing 27

ORDER regarding Defendant Harborview's 15 Motion for Protective Order, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1

THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

RAINER METZGER, et al.,
No. C17-1391RSL

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER REGARDING
HARBORVIEW’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
HARBORVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, et
al.,

12

Defendants.
13
14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on “Harborview Medical Center’s Motion
for Protective Order.” Dkt. # 15. 1 When providing mental health services, Harborview

17

is required to keep patient records, including the fact of admission and all information

18

and records compiled in the course of providing mental health services, confidential.

19

RCW 70.02.230(1). The information may, however, be disclosed “[p]ursuant to lawful

20

order of a court.” RCW 70.02.230(2)(o). Harborview seeks a blanket protective order

21

that would effectively excuse it from responding to any allegations of the complaint

22
1

23

This matter can be decided on the papers submitted. Harborview’s request for oral argument
is DENIED.

ORDER REGARDING HARBORVIEW’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

and/or discovery requests that would reveal information regarding a non-party, M.D.

2

M.D. is alleged to have sexually assaulted plaintiff’s ward while they were both

3
4

patients in Harborview’s psychiatric unit.
Harborview’s request is unwarranted in the circumstances presented here. The

5

alleged perpetrator has been charged with Indecent Liberties in state court: his full
6

name, date of birth, mental health condition, and relevant symptoms are part of the
7
8
9

public record in the criminal case. Plaintiffs have and are entitled to use this
information. 2 Additional information will be needed as plaintiffs pursue the claims

10

asserted in this litigation, however. Key issues will be what Harborview knew about

11

M.D.’s propensity for sexual aggression and what environmental, therapeutic, and

12

medical efforts Harborview took to restrain him and/or to protect those around him.

13

Although steps will be taken to protect M.D.’s confidential mental health information, 3

14

the Court finds that his interests can be adequately protected without imposing the

15
16

discovery bar Harborview seeks.
(1) Harborview shall, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, file under

17

seal an amended answer that fully responds to the allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint.
18
19
20

2

In one of the cases on which Harborview relies, the court found that the Illinois version of
RCW 70.02.230 “will not apply if Jane Doe’s name, address or telephone number are discovered
through inadvertence or from some source other than her hospital records.” Giangiulio v. Ingals
Memorial Hosp., 850 N.E.2d 249, 263 (Ill. App. 2006).

21
22
23

3

Harborview argues that subsection (2)(o), which authorizes disclosures pursuant to a lawful
court order, applies only if the Court is ordering a disclosure that is already permitted under the
statute. This extraordinary position is not supported by the structure of RCW 70.02.230, case law, or
policy considerations.

ORDER REGARDING HARBORVIEW’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

A redacted version of the answer shall be filed for public viewing. Information that is

2

already part of the record in this or the related criminal proceeding should not be

3
4

redacted.
Both parties shall refer to M.D. and K.F. by their initials in future filings.

5

Without prejudice to future discovery motions related to relevance, undue
6

burden, privileges, etc., Harborview shall respond to discovery requests related to
7
8
9

M.D. and his care. Records related to or disclosing patients other than M.D. and K.F.
shall be redacted of all identifying information.

10

Plaintiffs shall maintain any and all non-public information produced by

11

Harborview regarding M.D. in a secure location and in strict confidence. The records

12

and the information regarding M.D. shall be used solely for purposes of this litigation.

13

All future filings that refer to non-public information regarding M.D. shall be filed

14

under seal, with a redacted version filed for public viewing.

15
16

This order is entered by the authority granted in RCW 70.02.230(2)(o) and

17

authorizes Harborview’s disclosure of the mental health records discussed herein.
18
19
20

Dated this 7th day of November, 2017.

21

A
Robert S. Lasnik

22

United States District Judge

23
ORDER REGARDING HARBORVIEW’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER