Hupp v. San Diego County District Attorney et al, No. 3:2012cv00492 - Document 159 (S.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hupp v. San Diego County District Attorney et al Doc. 159 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) Dockets.Justia.com 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. 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). Generally, in federal question cases, 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”). III. 12 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 Defendants claim that 10 psychological issues. 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. 22 (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 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)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
