(PS) Schmitz v. Asman

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00195
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS SCHMITZ, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00195 DJC CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 ADAM ASMAN, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 18 Defendants Adams, Andaluz, Ashe, Asman, Branman, Brizendine, Brockenborough, 19 Ceballos, Heatley, J. Johnson, R. Johnson, Kernan, Ponciano, Ramkumar, Rekart, Robinson, 20 Rudas, M. Smith, C. Smith, Tebrock, Toche, and Waine (“defendants”) previously moved the 21 court for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) limiting the scope of the 22 third-party subpoena issued to Dr. Michael Golding. (ECF No. 323.) The court granted the 23 motion in part and denied it in part, and ordered documents be submitted for in camera review. 24 (ECF No. 344.) 25 The court has preliminarily reviewed the documents submitted for in camera review. For 26 all categories of documents, defendants object based on physician-patient privilege and HIPAA. 27 HIPPA creates a procedure for obtaining authority to use medical records in litigation and 28 does not create substantive rights that act as a bar on discovery. See Nw. Mem’l Hosp. v. 1 Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 925-26 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding HIPAA does not create an evidentiary 2 privilege in federal question suits). HIPAA regulations provide that a covered entity may provide 3 protected patient records pursuant to a court order. See 45 C.F.R. 164.512(e)(1)(i). There is, 4 further, no physician-patient privilege under federal law. See Hutton v. City of Martinez, 219 5 F.R.D. 164, 166 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Accordingly, defendants’ assertion of HIPAA and physician- 6 patient privilege are overruled.1 7 As to categories 3 and 4, documents Bates Stamped IC005517-005529 and IC005530- 8 005559, defendants also assert attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. “The party 9 asserting the privilege bears the burden of proving each essential element.” United States v. 10 Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 608 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 11 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth an eight-part test for attorney-client privilege); see also United States 12 v. 22,80 Acres of Land, 107 F.R.D. 20, 22 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (the party claiming work product 13 bears the burden of establishing that documents claimed as work product were prepared in 14 anticipation of litigation). 15 Particularly as to IC005533, IC005535, IC005557, IC005543, and IC005557- IC005557, 16 it is not readily apparent from the face of the materials that they were created in anticipation of 17 litigation. Defendants will have an opportunity to submit evidence in support of the attorney- 18 client privilege and work product assertion for the documents Bates Stamped IC005517-005529 19 and IC005530-005559. 20 In addition, defendants shall file a supplemental statement regarding the following (a) who 21 made the redactions pertaining to unrelated medical providers and irrelevant contact information 22 such as email addresses, and (b) when those redactions were made. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within 14 days of the date 24 of this order, defendants shall file a supplemental statement as set forth above and may optionally 25

1 However, a patient’s constitutional right of privacy in receiving medical treatment may be an 26 alternative source of protection to the physician-patient privilege. See Caesar v. Mountanos, 542 27 F.2d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1976) (discussing a conditional right of privacy in the doctor-patient relationship). In this instance, redaction of identifiable information for inmate-patients whose 28 medical conditions are not at issue in this case is warranted to protect their privacy. 1 | submit evidence in support of their attorney-client privilege and work product assertions for the 2 | documents Bates Stamped IC005517-005529 and IC005530-005559. 3 | Dated: April 17, 2025 a, 1 □□ / rie a 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 & sekmitz200v195.ier.supp 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28