I.H.M v. Contra Costa County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LH.M., Case No. 22-cv-06026-VC (TSH) 8 Plaintiff, 9 y. DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 145 10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiff has served Defendant Contra Costa County a request for documents in the 14 || County’s possession that relate to Plaintiff. These include juvenile court records that include, for 3 15 || example, the names of foster parents and foster siblings who were parties or witnesses to the a 16 || actions that give rise of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff needs unredacted versions of these documents 3 17 to proceed with her case. The County, however, has produced only redacted versions, citing 18 California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 827 and 10850. The Court finds the decision in Doe 19 No. 59 vy. Santa Rosa City Schools, 2017 WL 11837754 (N.D. Cal. March 1, 2017), well-reasoned 20 || and on point. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to compel and ORDERS the 21 County to produce the requested documents in unredacted form. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: September 11, 2025 25 ] ALN: Lj THOMAS S. HIXSON 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28