The opinion
1 CARTER C. WHITE – 164149
KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
2 U.C. Davis School of Law
One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB-30
3 Davis, California 95616-8821
Telephone: (530) 752-5440
4 Facsimile: (530) 752-5788
Email: ccwhite@ucdavis.edu
5
MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
6 GAY CROSTHWAIT GRUNFELD – 121944
MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850
7 ALEXANDER GOURSE - 321631
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
8 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-1738
9 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
10 Email: mbien@rbgg.com
ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
11 mfreedman@rbgg.com
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15 SACRAMENTO DIVISION
16
17 DERRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, Case No. 2:76-CV-00162-EFB
KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C. CANADA,
18 DARRY TYRONE PARKER, individually and STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER REGARDING
19 PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL
Plaintiffs, AND MENTAL HEALTH
20 RECORDS FOR CLASS
v. MEMBERS
21
JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of Yuba County; Judge: Edmund F. Brennan
22 Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY, as Yuba County
Jailer; JAMES PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, Trial Date: None Set
23 DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD J. “SAM”
SPERBEK, JAMES MARTIN, as members of
24 the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS,
25
Defendants.
26
27
1 On January 30, 2019, an Amended Consent Decree (“ACD”) was entered in this
2 action related to specified conditions of confinement at the Yuba County Jail (“the Jail”).
3 See ECF No. 258.
4 The ACD, Article 15 provides that Class Counsel will monitor the conditions of the
5 Jail to evaluate compliance with the terms of the ACD.
6 Among the conditions to be monitored by Class Counsel are the nature and
7 timeliness of medical and mental health services provided to class members.
8 Pursuant to the ACD, Class Counsel is entitled to review records to assist them in
9 their responsibilities, including medical records.
10 Article 15 of the ACD also requires that on a quarterly basis the County produce to
11 Class Counsel documents and records specified in Exhibit G to the ACD. These records
12 include medical and mental health information. The parties have agreed to a HIPAA-
13 qualified protective order, see ECF No. 188, limiting the use of such records to the current
14 litigation and requiring the return of or destruction of such records upon the termination of
15 this matter.
16 Class counsel has requested that the County produce medical and mental health
17 records for specific individual class members. Since the final approval of the ACD,
18 County has only released such records to Class Counsel if Class Counsel obtained a signed
19 authorization for those records from the person whose records were sought. Class Counsel
20 has submitted numerous requests for medical/mental health records with valid
21 authorizations for the release of such records. The County has produced those records. In
22 cases where a class member has placed his or her medical condition at issue, often referred
23 to as an urgent medical request or emergent medical concern, the County has produced
24 some medical information to Class Counsel without an authorization.
25 The parties have met and conferred on the issue of production of class members’
26 medical and mental health records in the absence of signed releases by the individual for
27 whom records are sought. Class Counsel assert that Defendants’ demands for signed
1 written waivers from class members at the Jail is burdensome and results in delays before
2 Class Counsel are able to investigate potential violations of the ACD. In addition, some
3 class members are no longer in Defendants’ custody by the time Class Counsel become
4 aware of potential violations of the ACD related to their care or need for care. Class
5 Counsel have no reliable means of locating and contacting such class members to obtain
6 waivers for the release of their medical records.
7 Defendants acknowledges that some courts have found that the need for monitoring
8 a correctional facility’s compliance with the terms of a consent decree outweighs the
9 individual right to privacy of the class members. The authority cited acknowledges the
10 need for a balancing of interests prior to the production of such records. After such
11 weighing, the court may order defendants to produce class members’ medical records and
12 mental health records without the need for a signed authorization. The cited cases are from
13 District courts without appellate review.
14 The parties have discussed the common-law evidentiary privilege set out in Jaffee v
15 Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), and agree that specific findings shall be made indicating that
16 the Court has considered that privilege and determined that it is outweighed by the need
17 for production of documents for purposes of monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the
18 ACD, subject to the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on February 7, 2017,
19 ECF No. 188.
20 Therefore the parties agree that the matter shall be presented to the Court for
21 consideration of the stipulated order. Should the Court agree and sign the order,
22 Defendants will comply with production of documents consistent with this stipulated
23 order.
24 The parties agree that Class Counsel will provide a statement of good cause for each
25 request for medical or mental health records. For purposes of this Stipulation, the term
26 “good cause” shall mean that Class Counsel has articulated a reason for reviewing the
27 records that is related to its monitoring of Defendants’ compliance with the ACD. The
1 supported by good cause.
2 Further, the parties agree that the Court shall extend this order to apply to any third-
3 party contractors with whom the County contracts to provide healthcare and mental health
4 services to class members in the Yuba County Jail.
5 Class Counsel may still obtain medical or mental health records for individual class
6 members by presenting a signed authorization to Defendants that authorizes the release of
7 such records to Class Counsel. Records produced by Defendants to Class Counsel
8 pursuant to a signed authorization shall not be subject to the protective order in this case.
9 IT IS SO STIPULATED
10 DATED: April 27, 2021 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
11
By: /s/ Michael Freedman
12 Michael Freedman
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
15 DATED: April 27, 2021 COUNTY OF YUBA
16
By: /s/ Michael Ciccozzi
17 Michael Ciccozzi
County Counsel
18
19 Attorneys for Defendants
20
21 FILER’S ATTESTATION
22 I attest that I obtained concurrence in the filing of this document by all signatories, and that
23 I have maintained records to support this concurrence.
24
25 DATED: April 27, 2021 /s/ Michael Freedman
Michael Freedman
26
27
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER
2 The court has weighed the competing interests presented by the issue of producing
3 medical and mental health records of class members without the prior authorization of the
4 class member and the need to monitor compliance with the ACD in this case.
5 The Court finds that the need for prompt review of medical and mental health
6 records of individual class members, subject to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order
7 entered by the Court on February 7, 2017, outweighs class members’ interests in
8 preventing disclosure of those records for purposes of the privileges and privacy rights
9 provided by federal and state law and the protections afforded by HIPAA.
10 Accordingly, having reviewed the above Stipulation of the parties, and good cause
11 appearing, it is ORDERED that:
12 Defendants and any third-party with whom Defendants contract to provide medical
13 or mental health care to class members in the Yuba County Jail, including but not limited
14 to Wellpath or its affiliated entities, shall produce to Class Counsel medical and mental
15 health records for specific class members so long as Class Counsel articulates in its request
16 for such records a statement of good cause and the time period covered by the request. For
17 purposes of this Order, the term “good cause” shall mean that Class Counsel has
18 articulated a reason for reviewing the records that is related to its monitoring of
19 Defendants’ compliance with the Amended Consent Decree. Medical and mental health
20 records produced to Class Counsel pursuant to this Order are subject to the Stipulated
21 Protective Order entered by the court February 7, 2017.
22 If a dispute arises as to the existence of good cause for the production of requested
23 records the parties shall meet and confer to resolve such issues in accordance with this
24 order. If the parties cannot resolve a dispute over whether good causes exists for the
25 production of requested records, Plaintiffs may seek relief in this Court.
26 Nothing in this Order shall affect Class Counsel’s ability to obtain medical or
27 mental health records for individual class members by presenting a signed authorization to
1 || mental health records produced by Defendants to Class Counsel in response to a signed
2 || authorization shall not be subject to the Stipulative Protective Order in this case.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4|| DATED: May 17, 2021.
> P.
6 Sn L A Biet WP
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
7 United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3725629.2