2012-00132473-CU-PO

Eric Alston vs. Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Subpoena

Filed By: Alston, Eric

The motion of Pro Per Plaintiff Eric Alston (“Alston”) for an order quashing the
subpoenas for medical records issued by Defendants Sacramento Police Officers
Michael Edell (formerly Michael Briggs) and Allison Cunningham (formerly Allison
Pane) (collectively “Defendants”) is DENIED.

This is a personal injury case in which Alston broadly alleges that Defendants caused
him physical and emotional injuries in the course of detaining him. Defendants
previously issued a subpoena for Alston’s medical records, to which Alston did not
object. The current subpoenas are meant to learn about any treatment that Alston
may have received since the first subpoena was issued.

The court agrees with Defendants that Alston has placed his physical and emotional
health at issue and that the discovery is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to
discovery of admissible evidence. The court further finds that Defendants have a
compelling need for Alston’s medical records that overcomes any countervailing
privacy interest. However, in order to protect against unnecessary dissemination of
Alston’s medical records, the court orders Defendants not to disclose the records or
their contents to anyone other than their counsel, their counsel’s staff, their experts in
this case, Alston or the court.

Defendants’ request for sanctions pursuant to CCP 1987.2 is DENIED.

The court notes that Defendants have filed a copy of a subpoena duces tecum that
contains an unredacted social security number, which is a violation of CRC 1.20(b).
(See Womack Decl., Exh. B.) No later than December 5, 2013, and pursuant to CRC
2.550-2.551, Defendants shall file a motion or application to seal the Womack
Declaration. At the time the motion or application is made, Defendants shall file an
appropriately redacted but otherwise identical version of the Womack Declaration. The clerk of the court is directed to change the security clearance on the
unredacted Womack Declaration (filed 11/07/13) so that it is not available for
pubic viewing.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as
required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving party is directed to contact counsel for
opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the court’s
tentative ruling procedure. If moving party is unable to contact counsel for opposing
party prior to hearing, moving party shall be available at the hearing, in person or by
telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set
forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.