Case Name:   Frederico Paredez v. Michael Todd Williams

Case No.:       1-12-CV-230995

Defendant Michael Todd Williams (“Defendant”) moves to enforce subpoenas issued to Santa Rita Jail, Corcoran State Prison, San Quentin State Prison, and Salinas Valley State Prison (the “Facilities”) that seek records regarding Plaintiff Frederico Paredez (“Plaintiff”).

Plaintiff objected to the subpoenas on the ground that they violate his right to privacy in his psychological records.  Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his mental health records.  (See Board of Med. Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 679.)  Here, the subpoenas constitute a serious invasion of privacy as they seek production of Plaintiff’s mental health records and, thus, Defendant must establish that the information sought is directly relevant to the instant case. (See Britt v. Super. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859; see also Binder v. Super. Ct. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 893, 901 [holding “direct relevance” is a higher standard than the “relevancy to the subject matter” standard and requires something more than an assertion that the requested discovery might lead to admissible evidence].)

Plaintiff’s mental health records, pertaining to current and pre-existing conditions of depression and/or anxiety, are directly relevant to the issues of causation and damages because Plaintiff stated in his responses to form interrogatories that he suffers from the specific mental harm of ongoing bouts of anxiety and depression as a result of the accident and admits that he has a psychological history, which may be reflected in the medical records obtained from the Facilities.  (See Davis v. Super. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1015-1017 [stating that an “allegation of pain and suffering from a physical injury permits a party to recover for a range of emotional injuries” as “[p]ain and suffering have included physical pain, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, apprehension, terror and ordeal,” but “[i]n the cases [. . .] reviewed which find direct relevance, all appear to include specific averments or reasonable interpretations drawn from the pleading which clearly place mental condition in issue”]; see also In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 415, 435; Britt v. Super. Ct., supra, at p. 850, fn. 9.)

Furthermore, the parties have not identified any less intrusive means by which Plaintiff’s mental health records may be obtained and, on balance, Defendant’s interest in obtaining directly relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s claims of anxiety and depression outweigh Plaintiff’s privacy interests.  (See Allen v. Super. Ct. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s privacy objection is overruled.

Plaintiff also objected to the subpoena on the grounds of over breath and relevancy.  The Court sustains Plaintiff’s over breadth and relevancy objections because the subpoenas request all of Plaintiff’s prison records and the medical records requested are not limited by body part or condition to those at issue in the present case.  However, the Court chooses to modify the subpoenas, rather than disallow production entirely, because Plaintiff’s responses to the form interrogatories demonstrate that medical records from the Facilities that pertain to injuries or medical conditions involving Plaintiff’s teeth, head, neck, back, left shoulder, left calf, left flank, legs, anxiety and depression are relevant to the instant case.

Thus, Defendant’s motion to enforce the subpoenas, as modified, is GRANTED. Specifically, the subpoenas are modified to include only Plaintiff’s medical records pertaining to his teeth, head, neck, back, left shoulder, left calf, left flank, legs, anxiety, and depression.  Accordingly, the Facilities shall produce Plaintiff’s medical records pertaining to his teeth, head, neck, back, left shoulder, left calf, left flank, legs, anxiety, and depression, within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Court’s order.