Weiss v. City of Santa Rosa Police Department et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01639

ORDER re {{110}}, {{111}} In Camera Review of Plaintiff's Mental Health Records. The records do not require redaction, but are subject to the stipulated protective order. Defendants may retrieve the original records from the Oakland Clerk's Office between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM within 14 days of this order. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/31/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # {{1}} Certificate/Proof of Service)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TERRY L WEISS, Case No. 4:15-cv-01639-YGR (KAW) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING THE IN CAMERA REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS 10 CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE Re: Dkt. Nos. 110, 111 DEPARTMENT, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 On May 5, 2017, the undersigned ordered Defendants to subpoena Plaintiff Terry L. 14 Weiss's mental health records and lodge them with the Court for the purposes of performing an in 15 camera review. (Dkt. No. 106.) On July 12 and 14, 2017, Defendants produced records obtained 16 from Jo Inhinger, MFT, Sylvia Shirikian, Psy.D, David Schneider, Ph.D, Steven Ranish, Ph.D, 17 Andrea Shelley, MD, and Laura Doty, Ph.D. (See Dkt. Nos. 110 & 111.) 18 Upon review of the records, the Court notes that not all documents identified in the minute 19 entries, and sought by the subpoena, appear to have been produced by the medical professionals, 20 including a report from Dr. Shelley, in which she purportedly opined that Plaintiff's competency 21 would "not likely be restored." (See Dkt. No. 106 at 2.) Notwithstanding, the Court finds that all 22 documents lodged are relevant to the issue of Plaintiff's mental competency. Furthermore, none 23 of the mental health records were for private mental health services, but, rather, were connected to 24 her criminal case, which minimizes any privacy concerns. Moreover, Plaintiff stated that she has 25 no objection to Defendants obtaining copies of her mental health records. (See Dkt. No. 105 at 21- 26 22.)1 27 1 28 The parties are advised that the undersigned is not making any determination regarding Plaintiff's competency. Rather, this order only addresses whether the medical records obtained by 1 Accordingly, the Court finds that all subpoenaed mental health records may be produced to 2 Defendants without redaction, but are subject to the stipulated protective order currently in effect. 3 Defendants may retrieve the original mental health records from the Oakland Clerk's Office, 1301 4 Clay Street, 4th Floor, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., within 14 days of this order. Defendants 5 are advised that the records may be destroyed if they are not timely retrieved. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 31, 2017 __________________________________ 8 KANDIS A. WESTMORE 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 subpoena may be produced to Defendants, which has been done in an abundance of caution, 28 despite Plaintiff's consent, due to Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant and that her mental competency is at issue. 2