2012-00120535-CU-CR
Jacinto Velasquez vs. County of Sacramento
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Identification and Production of Documents
Filed By: Sarmiento, Vicki I.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Salvation Army to Provide Further Responses
to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) is GRANTED, in part, as set forth
below.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by with C.R.C., Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D). Local Rules for the
Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court’s website at
ordered to notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to 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).
This is one of two consolidated actions brought by Plaintiffs, the parents and children
of the decedent Gyro Velazquez, for his wrongful death.
The first action is a medical malpractice action against Sutter General Hospital, and
the medical care providers which alleges negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of
plaintiff’s decedent.
This second action against Salvation Army and the County of Sacramento alleges
negligence, wrongful death and violation of Govt. Code, sec. 845.6, for failure to
furnish a prisoner with medical care.
Plaintiffs’ decedent Velazquez was a 22 year old man, who had been sentenced to
one year in a drug and alcohol treatment program operated by the Salvation Army,
under contract with the County. Decedent was a resident of defendant’s facility from
January 20, 2011 to March 11, 2011. He died on March 15, 2011. An autopsy
revealed that Velazquez died from a preventable and treatable medical condition,
cysticerocisis which is an infection by parasite/ tape worm, resulting in hydrocephalus
and brain stem herniation.
Plaintiffs allege that the Salvation Army owed a mandatory statutory duty to exercise
reasonable care in providing drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment programs to
individuals who were placed and/or ordered into its care for treatment relating to drug
and/or alcohol illness.
Plaintiffs seek discovery of the names and contact information of other residents of the
drug and alcohol treatment program operated by the Salvation Army (known as
“beneficiaries”) at the time that plaintiff’s decedent was a resident (Jan. 20, 2011 to
March 11, 2011).
Plaintiffs assert that the beneficiaries are witnesses to any complaints plaintiffs’
decedent may have made to defendant’s staff about his health. Defendant’s witnesses
have denied any prior knowledge of the severity of decedent’s illness and also denied
that any acts or omissions of their employees prevented decedent from obtaining
medical care.
Plaintiffs have an interest in obtaining testimony from third party percipient witnesses
about plaintiffs’ decedent and in checking the veracity of the testimony of the
defendant’s employees. Plaintiffs deny [properly] that they will question the
beneficiaries as to their individual medical conditions.
In opposition, Salvation Army asserts the beneficiaries’ rights to privacy in their
medical information, citing the California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1 and Los Angeles
Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 288.
Salvation Army contends that it is not a medical facility in that it does not assess
and/or evaluate the overall health of a beneficiary during their residency. Beneficiaries
are provided access to medical care if they request it.
Decedent, while a resident, requested and received a release to receive medical care
on two occasions. The first time he was taken to the emergency room at Sutter
Medical Center on February 27, 2011, and the second time on March 9, 2011, he was
given a pass to go see his personal physician, Dr. Jose Molina. After receiving medical
care and treatment from both of these medical providers, he was released to return to
the facility.
Defendant asserts that the beneficiaries’ clearly recognized privacy interest in their
medical and drug treatment records is of such sensitivity that it necessarily requires an
affirmative consent by the beneficiaries to waive the privilege held by these third party
beneficiaries.
Defendant asserts that less intrusive alternatives to this discovery exist through the
depositions of the defendant’s employees who were in direct contact with the decedent
when he was a resident.
Defendant further contends that the disclosure of the identities of the beneficiaries
would injure its drug and alcohol treatment program operated by the Salvation Army,
as maintaining the beneficiaries’ privacy is critical to the overall success of the
program.
In reply, moving party contends that at a minimum, the procedure followed by the court
in Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 288,
310-311 should be followed in this action. That procedure would allow those
beneficiaries present at Salvation Army during the relevant time period to be notified of
this pending litigation, the reasons their contact information is being sought and to
permit each of them the opportunity to respond or not at their discretion.
The Court finds that although the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center procedure was
fashioned in a class action, a similar procedure could be followed here without an
undue burden on the defendant. Counsel shall meet and confer to agree on the form of a stipulated letter to be
prepared and sent by defendant to each beneficiary whom defendant can identify in
response to the Requests nos. 6 and 7. The letter shall requesting their written
consent to the disclosure of their names, last known addresses and phone numbers to
counsel for the plaintiffs in this litigation.
Defendant shall not be required to retain an investigator to locate those beneficiaries
for whom the current contact information is not readily available.
If any of the beneficiaries agree to waive their rights of privacy as to their identities and
contact information, their names and contact information shall be disclosed by counsel
for the defendant to counsel for plaintiffs. The beneficiaries’ written consent will be
deemed to be a waiver of their third party right of privacy as to their identities and
contact information, and failure to consent will prohibit the disclosure of any
information regarding those beneficiaries to plaintiffs’ counsel.
Counsel for plaintiff and defendant shall meet and confer to agree upon the contents of
a form letter to the beneficiaries, and a stipulated protective order preventing the
use of the information disclosed for any purpose except this litigation not later than
Friday, April 11, 2014.
Counsel for the defense shall maintain a confidential log including the names, contact
addresses, dates letters mailed and each beneficiaries response thereto, for in camera
review, should further motion practice be required.
The disclosure of the names, identifying information, and medical information [if any
comes to light] of the third party beneficiaries shall not be subject to public disclosure
in any court filing or otherwise, absent prior order of this Court.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.
Link to this page