Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV37000, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37000    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Richard Patterson and William Milton (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for orders compelling the production of documents from Darryck Dwelle in response to a deposition notice (“Dwelle”) and The Salvation Army (“TSA”) in response to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).    Generally, Plaintiffs request the production of documents related to individual defendants Colby Hudson Pinkcard (“Pinkcard”), Jackie Roe Triplett (“Triplett”) and Edwin Bonilla (“Bonilla”) (collectively, “Individual Defendants”), including criminal records, documents relating to mental health issues, drug test results, urinalysis results, background checks, and alcohol test results.  The Individual Defendants were participants in TSA’s alcohol and drug rehabilitation program; participants are referred to by TSA as “beneficiaries.”  TSA contends that the documents requested by Plaintiffs are protected from disclosure on privacy grounds. 

In determining whether a discovery order would violate state constitutional privacy rights, the Court applies the framework established in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 26 (Hill).  In applying the Hill test, “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [citing Hill, supra, at pp. 35–37.)  “The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests [the] disclosure serves,” and “[a] court must then balance these competing considerations.”  (Williams, supra, at p. 552 [citing Hill, supra, at pp. 37–40.) 

Even if TSA were not a federally funded drug and rehabilitation center, TSA has established that the Individual Defendants have a legally protected privacy interest in the documents demanded by Plaintiffs because the guarantees of confidentiality are an indispensable prerequisite to any substance abuse treatment.  (See County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621, 643.)  Moreover, the Individual Defendants have a reasonable expectation of privacy for such records, and producing them as demanded by Plaintiffs, would constitute a serious invasion of privacy.  (Id., p. 645 [“The nature of these medical records at issue in this case – treatment records for stigmatized condition – only heightens the need for ‘robust protection.’”]) 

The Court is also receptive to TSA’s proposed requirement for Plaintiffs to provide written notice to the Individual Defendants that these documents are being requested.  The Court is concerned that the Individual Defendants have not been given an opportunity to object to the disclosure of their records.  (See Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658 [if the proposed discovery affects the privacy rights of nonparties, the judge may require that they be notified and given an opportunity to object.].)  Plaintiffs notably did not file reply briefs to address this particular issue of notice. 

Moreover, by failing to file a reply brief, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that there are countervailing interests that outweigh this serious potential invasion of the Individual Defendants’ privacy rights.  These interests might include “the interest of the requesting party, fairness to litigants in conducting the litigation, and the consequences of granting or restricting access to the information.”  (County, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 653 [citing Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 288, 307.)  However, Plaintiffs do not provide any discussion of the elements of their causes of action or how these treatment records (and information within them) would bear on their theories of liability.  (See County, supra,65 Cal.App.5th at p. 654.)  Plaintiffs have also not described how the information sought cannot be obtained by less intrusive means. 

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, and based on the joint statement filed by the parties on September 28, 2022, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions. Specifically, Request for Production (“RFP”) Nos.: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 35 are denied on the grounds that Plaintiffs are unjustifiably invading the Individual Defendants’ right to privacy.   

RFP Nos. 9, 11, 12, 18-19, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32 are denied as moot.  TSA has either agreed to produce the documents with redactions or stated that no such documents exist. 

Notice of Deposition, RFP No. 6 is denied on privacy grounds.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.