1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDISON GATLIN, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00370-SI
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 9 v. WITH SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 207 11 Defendants.
12 13 BACKGROUND 14 Plaintiffs and third-party San Joaquin County have filed a discovery dispute regarding the 15 release of plaintiff Edison Gatlin’s Human Services Agency (“HSA”) file. Dkt. Nos. 207, 209. 16 Plaintiffs say they served and filed a request for the file in 2022, pursuant to California Welfare and 17 Institutions Code Section 827, but that the Juvenile Court denied the petition because no court case 18 was ever filed for Edison in San Joaquin County.1 Dkt. No. 207 at 1. Plaintiffs have since sent a subpoena to HSA requesting specific documents maintained in Edison’s HSA file and requesting 19 Edison’s entire HSA file. Id. San Joaquin County says that it cannot locate the 827 petition that 20 plaintiffs say they filed and that plaintiffs should pursue Edison’s case file through the Juvenile 21 Court first, rather than asking this Court to order disclosure. San Joaquin County also objects that 22 the information plaintiffs seek in the subpoena is overbroad. 23 The Court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file a declaration with supporting documents to show 24 that plaintiffs had filed the 827 petition and also afforded San Joaquin County the opportunity to 25 respond to plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration. See Dkt. Nos. 215, 216, 220, 221. The Court has 26 27 1 reviewed the many filings and exhibits and the matter is now ripe for review. 2 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 “[F]ederal common law on privilege, not state law, controls cases that are in federal court 5 with federal question jurisdiction.” Doe No. 59 v. Santa Rosa City Sch., No. 3:16-cv-01256-WHO, 6 2017 WL 11837754, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017) (citations omitted). Accordingly, a federal court may order the disclosure of a California juvenile case file during the course of discovery in federal 7 litigation, notwithstanding California’s statutory limits on the release of these files. See id. (granting 8 the plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of the entire juvenile case file of a minor defendant, 9 despite state court decision, pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827, rejecting the plaintiff’s 10 request for same); see also D.C. by & through Garter v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 3:15-cv-01868- 11 MMA (NLS), 2016 WL 11621269, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) (“. . . the Court agrees with Plaintiff 12 that it is not bound by state law and that it has the authority to order disclosure of information from 13 the juvenile case files.”); Maldonado v. Sec’y of Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:06CV02696- 14 MCE/GGH, 2007 WL 4249811 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2007) (granting motion to compel documents 15 in Section 1983 action after concluding Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827 did not bar production). 16 Nevertheless, “even in cases where federal law applies, constitutional and prudential 17 considerations suggest that courts should carefully assess any attempt to compel disclosure of 18 confidential juvenile court [files].” Doe No. 59, 2017 WL 11837754, at *1 (quoting 23 Charles 19 Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5428, at 817 (1980)). 20 The case law coming out of district courts in California suggests that, while a juvenile case file may 21 be released in the course of discovery in federal litigation, courts should exercise caution, and a 22 protective order may be appropriate. See id. at *2; Maldonado, 2007 WL 4249811, at *5 (“To the 23 extent that the privacy of any other wards, officers or third parties is at risk, this information will 24 not be disclosed outside this case and will be subject to a stipulated protective order which will serve 25 to protect the privacy of these individuals as much as possible.”). The federal court should take 26 Section 827 into account and may need to “weigh[] the needs of the case versus the state interest in 27 keeping the juvenile information confidential.” D.C., 2016 WL 11621269, at *4 (citing Horn v. 1 Maldonado, 2007 WL 4249811, at *5)). 2 3 DISCUSSION 4 It appears from the record that even if plaintiffs filed an 827 petition in San Joaquin County, 5 they filed it in the wrong court.2 The 827 petition attached to plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration is 6 addressed to the San Joaquin County Juvenile Justice Center in French Camp, California, which is a separate court from the dependency court located in Stockton California. See Dkt. No. 216-1, 7 Chung Decl., Ex. A; Dkt. No. 221, King Decl., ¶ 3. 8 Nevertheless, the Court will order San Joaquin County to respond to plaintiffs’ subpoena 9 served April 25, 2025. See Chung Decl., Ex. B. With their papers, plaintiffs have also submitted a 10 file-stamped copy of an 827 petition that Contra Costa County filed with the San Joaquin County 11 dependency court, at the correct address, on November 13, 2024. See Chung Decl., Ex. E. San 12 Joaquin County stated in its objection to plaintiffs’ subpoena that the dependency court “usually 13 responds or holds a hearing to discuss objections in one to two months.” See Chung Decl., Ex. D. 14 But it appears that Contra Costa County has been waiting much longer than that, eight months and 15 counting. See Chung Decl. ¶ 19 (declaring that counsel for Contra Costa County advised plaintiffs’ 16 counsel in July 2025 “that no records have been produced by the San Joaquin County Court or HSA 17 in response to Defendants [sic] 827 Petition”). Under these circumstances, the Court will not order 18 plaintiffs to return to the dependency court with a new 827 petition. The Court agrees with plaintiffs 19 that the interests here weigh in favor of disclosure, where a child died in foster care, where the public 20 has a strong interest in accurate fact-finding, and where the information sought is not readily 21 available from any other source. Moreover, concerns regarding the release of records are further 22 mitigated by the fact that Edison’s parents are prosecuting this case as his successors in interest. 23 Under Section 827, Edison’s parents are already entitled to view his case file. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. 24 Code § 827(a)(1)(D). 25 26
27 2 The Chung Declaration explains that plaintiffs never received a conformed copy of their 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency to 2 || comply with plaintiffs’ subpoena (dated April 22, 2025) and to produce the requested 3 || documents by no later than September 2, 2025. San Joaquin County has objected that “items 3 4 || and 12 in Plaintiffs’ subpoena are unduly overbroad and unlimited as to time or subject □□□□□□□□ 5 Dkt. No. 209 at 4. The Court will limit the time period of the requests in items 3 and 12 to September 6 || 2014 and forward, as Edison did not enter foster care until September 2014. 7 To the extent San Joaquin County has concerns regarding the potential disclosure of 8 || confidential information/identities of third parties who may be referenced in Edison’s HSA file, the 9 Court references its prior instructions on a discovery dispute with the California Department of 10 Social Services. See Dkt. No. 179 at 3. San Joaquin County may redact Social Security numbers 11 and the full names and full birth dates of any third-party minor children referenced in Edison’s HSA
2 file, without redacting the initials of any minor children and their years of birth. This will at least 13 allow plaintiffs to identify whether the same child was involved in multiple incidents and the child’s
14. || approximate age.
15 A 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDISON GATLIN, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00370-SI
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 9 v. WITH SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 207 11 Defendants.
12 13 BACKGROUND 14 Plaintiffs and third-party San Joaquin County have filed a discovery dispute regarding the 15 release of plaintiff Edison Gatlin’s Human Services Agency (“HSA”) file. Dkt. Nos. 207, 209. 16 Plaintiffs say they served and filed a request for the file in 2022, pursuant to California Welfare and 17 Institutions Code Section 827, but that the Juvenile Court denied the petition because no court case 18 was ever filed for Edison in San Joaquin County.1 Dkt. No. 207 at 1. Plaintiffs have since sent a subpoena to HSA requesting specific documents maintained in Edison’s HSA file and requesting 19 Edison’s entire HSA file. Id. San Joaquin County says that it cannot locate the 827 petition that 20 plaintiffs say they filed and that plaintiffs should pursue Edison’s case file through the Juvenile 21 Court first, rather than asking this Court to order disclosure. San Joaquin County also objects that 22 the information plaintiffs seek in the subpoena is overbroad. 23 The Court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file a declaration with supporting documents to show 24 that plaintiffs had filed the 827 petition and also afforded San Joaquin County the opportunity to 25 respond to plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration. See Dkt. Nos. 215, 216, 220, 221. The Court has 26 27 1 reviewed the many filings and exhibits and the matter is now ripe for review. 2 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 “[F]ederal common law on privilege, not state law, controls cases that are in federal court 5 with federal question jurisdiction.” Doe No. 59 v. Santa Rosa City Sch., No. 3:16-cv-01256-WHO, 6 2017 WL 11837754, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017) (citations omitted). Accordingly, a federal court may order the disclosure of a California juvenile case file during the course of discovery in federal 7 litigation, notwithstanding California’s statutory limits on the release of these files. See id. (granting 8 the plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of the entire juvenile case file of a minor defendant, 9 despite state court decision, pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827, rejecting the plaintiff’s 10 request for same); see also D.C. by & through Garter v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 3:15-cv-01868- 11 MMA (NLS), 2016 WL 11621269, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) (“. . . the Court agrees with Plaintiff 12 that it is not bound by state law and that it has the authority to order disclosure of information from 13 the juvenile case files.”); Maldonado v. Sec’y of Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:06CV02696- 14 MCE/GGH, 2007 WL 4249811 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2007) (granting motion to compel documents 15 in Section 1983 action after concluding Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827 did not bar production). 16 Nevertheless, “even in cases where federal law applies, constitutional and prudential 17 considerations suggest that courts should carefully assess any attempt to compel disclosure of 18 confidential juvenile court [files].” Doe No. 59, 2017 WL 11837754, at *1 (quoting 23 Charles 19 Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5428, at 817 (1980)). 20 The case law coming out of district courts in California suggests that, while a juvenile case file may 21 be released in the course of discovery in federal litigation, courts should exercise caution, and a 22 protective order may be appropriate. See id. at *2; Maldonado, 2007 WL 4249811, at *5 (“To the 23 extent that the privacy of any other wards, officers or third parties is at risk, this information will 24 not be disclosed outside this case and will be subject to a stipulated protective order which will serve 25 to protect the privacy of these individuals as much as possible.”). The federal court should take 26 Section 827 into account and may need to “weigh[] the needs of the case versus the state interest in 27 keeping the juvenile information confidential.” D.C., 2016 WL 11621269, at *4 (citing Horn v. 1 Maldonado, 2007 WL 4249811, at *5)). 2 3 DISCUSSION 4 It appears from the record that even if plaintiffs filed an 827 petition in San Joaquin County, 5 they filed it in the wrong court.2 The 827 petition attached to plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration is 6 addressed to the San Joaquin County Juvenile Justice Center in French Camp, California, which is a separate court from the dependency court located in Stockton California. See Dkt. No. 216-1, 7 Chung Decl., Ex. A; Dkt. No. 221, King Decl., ¶ 3. 8 Nevertheless, the Court will order San Joaquin County to respond to plaintiffs’ subpoena 9 served April 25, 2025. See Chung Decl., Ex. B. With their papers, plaintiffs have also submitted a 10 file-stamped copy of an 827 petition that Contra Costa County filed with the San Joaquin County 11 dependency court, at the correct address, on November 13, 2024. See Chung Decl., Ex. E. San 12 Joaquin County stated in its objection to plaintiffs’ subpoena that the dependency court “usually 13 responds or holds a hearing to discuss objections in one to two months.” See Chung Decl., Ex. D. 14 But it appears that Contra Costa County has been waiting much longer than that, eight months and 15 counting. See Chung Decl. ¶ 19 (declaring that counsel for Contra Costa County advised plaintiffs’ 16 counsel in July 2025 “that no records have been produced by the San Joaquin County Court or HSA 17 in response to Defendants [sic] 827 Petition”). Under these circumstances, the Court will not order 18 plaintiffs to return to the dependency court with a new 827 petition. The Court agrees with plaintiffs 19 that the interests here weigh in favor of disclosure, where a child died in foster care, where the public 20 has a strong interest in accurate fact-finding, and where the information sought is not readily 21 available from any other source. Moreover, concerns regarding the release of records are further 22 mitigated by the fact that Edison’s parents are prosecuting this case as his successors in interest. 23 Under Section 827, Edison’s parents are already entitled to view his case file. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. 24 Code § 827(a)(1)(D). 25 26
27 2 The Chung Declaration explains that plaintiffs never received a conformed copy of their 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency to 2 || comply with plaintiffs’ subpoena (dated April 22, 2025) and to produce the requested 3 || documents by no later than September 2, 2025. San Joaquin County has objected that “items 3 4 || and 12 in Plaintiffs’ subpoena are unduly overbroad and unlimited as to time or subject □□□□□□□□ 5 Dkt. No. 209 at 4. The Court will limit the time period of the requests in items 3 and 12 to September 6 || 2014 and forward, as Edison did not enter foster care until September 2014. 7 To the extent San Joaquin County has concerns regarding the potential disclosure of 8 || confidential information/identities of third parties who may be referenced in Edison’s HSA file, the 9 Court references its prior instructions on a discovery dispute with the California Department of 10 Social Services. See Dkt. No. 179 at 3. San Joaquin County may redact Social Security numbers 11 and the full names and full birth dates of any third-party minor children referenced in Edison’s HSA
2 file, without redacting the initials of any minor children and their years of birth. This will at least 13 allow plaintiffs to identify whether the same child was involved in multiple incidents and the child’s
14. || approximate age.
15 A 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17_ || Dated: August 13, 2025 Site WU tee
Z 18 TTT SUSAN ILLSTON 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 Ttem 3 requests “Any and all documents, emails, letters, and/or communications, in the 97 || possession, custody, and/or control of the County of San Joaquin relating in any way to Edison Gatlin . . . and/or his juvenile case[.]” Dkt. No. 216-2, Chung Decl., Ex. B., Attach. A. Item 12 2g || tequests “Any and all other records and or documents relating to Edison Gatlin not otherwise identified above, in YOUR possession, custody and or control.” Id.