# (PC) Hedrick v. Grant > District Court, E.D. California · May 17, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027704 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** May 17, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027704 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027704. Public record. Not legal advice.