Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805) LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com paul@markmerin.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs TAIJAH THOMAS, TAIONNAA THOMAS, ANITA THOMAS, and ANTHONY WALLACE °\|\PORTER | SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383 350 University Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 ] FAX: 916.927.3706 Attorneys for Defendants SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and SCOTT R. JONES ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, No. 2:20-cv-00903-KJM-DB TAIJAH THOMAS, TAIONNAA THOMAS, ANITA THOMAS, and ANTHONY WALLACE, | STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATIO) Plaintiffs, AND ORDER vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT R. JONES, and DOE 1 to 50, Defendants. □

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1, and 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v), the parties stipulate to the entry of a qualified protective order as follows: 1. The parties and their attorneys are authorized to receive, subpoena, and transmit “protected health information” pertaining to Antonio Thomas, to the extent and subject to the conditions outlined herein, including from the following healthcare providers: (1) Sierra Vista Hospital; (2) Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center; (3) Turning Point; (4) Crestwood Behavioral Health; (5) Heritage Oaks Hospital; (6) Umx T-Core; (7) County of Sacramento Adult Day Reporting Center (“ADRC”); (8) Visions Unlimited; (9) Adult Mental Health OP Clinic; (10) Sequoia Psychiatric Center; (11) North Valley Behavioral Health; (12) U.C. Davis Medical Center Department of Psychiatry & Behavior; (13) Sutter Medical Plaza Folsom; (14) Atascadero State Hospital; (15) Napa State Hospital; (16) Crestwood Center; and (17) Winding Oaks. 2. For the purposes of this qualified protective order, “protected health information” shall have the same scope and definition as set forth in 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 and 164.501. Protected health information includes, but is not limited to, health information, including demographic information, relating to either (a) the past, present, or future physical or mental condition of an individual; (b) the provision of care to an individual; or (c) the payment for care provided to an individual, which identifies the individual or which reasonably could be expected to identify the individual. 3. All “covered entities” (as defined by 45 C.F.R. § 160.103) are hereby authorized to disclose protected health information pertaining to Antonio Thomas to attorneys representing Plaintiffs and Defendants in the above-captioned litigation. 4. The parties and their attorneys shall be permitted to use or disclose the protected health information of Antonio Thomas for purposes of prosecuting or defending this action including any appeals of this case. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, disclosure to their attorneys, experts, consultants, court personnel, court reporters, copy services, trial consultants, and other entities or persons involved in the litigation process. 5. Prior to disclosing Antonio Thomas’ protected health information to persons involved in this litigation, counsel shall inform each such person that Antonio Thomas’s protected health information may not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than this litigation. Counsel shall take all other reasonable steps to ensure that persons receiving Antonio Thomas’ protected health information do not use or disclose such information for any purpose other than this litigation. 6. Within 45 days after the conclusion of the litigation including appeals, the parties, their attorneys, and any person or entity in possession of protected health information received from counsel pursuant to paragraph four of this Order, shall return Antonio Thomas’ protected health information to the covered entity or destroy any and all copies of protected health information pertaining to Antonio Thomas, except that counsel are not required to secure the return or destruction of protected health information submitted to the court. 7. This Order does not authorize either party to seal court filings or court proceedings. A party may seek permission from the Court to file protected health information under seal pursuant to E.D Cal. L.R. 141. Dated: June 15, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN /s/ Mark E. Merin By; Mark E. Merin Paul H. Masuhara Attomeys for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, TAIJAH THOMAS, TAIONNAA THOMAS, ANITA THOMAS, and ANTHONY WALLACE Dated: July 26, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, PORTER | SCOTT /s/ Suli A. Mastorakos (as authorized on July 26, 2021) By Carl L. Fessenden Suli A. Mastorakos Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 3 DEPARTMENT, and SCOTT R. JONES

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will decide the matter related to that request to seal. 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed by Local Rule 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. L.R. 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). 3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006). 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which the parties cannot informally resolve, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex parte basis or on shortened time. 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation and proposed order for the court’s consideration. 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated. 8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation that is in conflict with anything in this order is hereby DATED: August 3, 2021 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE