Case Number: BC516311    Hearing Date: August 22, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

RICKY HAWKINS,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

SUPREME TRANSPORT, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s). Case No.: BC516311

Hearing Date: August 22, 2014

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANTS SUPREME TRANSPORT, INC. AND CARLOS E. MARROQUIN’S
(1) MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF FEDERAL PRISON RECORDS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S INCARCERATION; AND
(2) MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION RECORDS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S INCARCERATION

Defendants Supreme Transport, Inc. and Carlos E. Marroquin’s (1) Motion for an Order Directing the Production of Federal Prison Records Regarding Plaintiff’s Incarceration; and (2) Motion for an Order Directing the Production of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Records Regarding Plaintiff’s Incarceration are DENIED.

Discussion

Federal Prison Records

Defendants move for a court order directing production of Plaintiff’s federal prison records pursuant to 28 CFR Section 513.34(a), which states: “Information that concerns an individual and is contained in a system of records maintained by the Bureau shall not be disclosed to any person, or to another agency except under the provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and Departmental regulations.” 5 U.S.C. Section 552a discusses conditions of disclosure of these records: “No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—(11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Defendants argue that the records include medical records, which may speak to Plaintiff’s health and preexisting injuries and disciplinary records, which are relevant to Plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff, however, has a right of privacy in his medical records.

[P]laintiffs are “not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific (physical,) mental or emotional injury”; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.

(Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.)

This is true even if the records are prison records.

“[A]ll medical information and records obtained by the state in providing services to those subject to criminal incarceration are confidential and may be released and disclosed only as specified by statute.” (People v. Martinez (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 465, 475).
Nor is Defendants’ relevance argument persuasive, as they present no evidence that Plaintiff was injured in prison or subject to any discipline. The only evidence presented is that Plaintiff got into some fights while incarcerated. (Motions, Exh. A (“Hawkins Statement”), pp. 27:11-22.) What happened following these fights is not explained. There is no evidence that Plaintiff was even injured in these fights, let alone provided medical treatment. “Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice” for showing direct relevance as to private information sought in discovery. (Davis v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1017-20 (directing trial court to grant motion to quash as to discovery request that was not narrowly drawn to enable the court to evaluate the appropriate extent of disclosure)). Absent showings of direct relevance, compelling need, and unavailability of alternative sources, a trial court only could find that a privacy interest prevails. (Ombudsman Services of No. Cal. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1251.) Given Defendants’ failure to demonstrate direct relevance, the request for a court order directing release of all of Plaintiff’s federal prison records is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s State Prison Records

Defendants also seek release of Plaintiff’s state prison records pursuant to CCP Section 1987.1 and Cal. Govt. Code Section 6250. CCP Section 1987.1 gives the Court the authority to direct compliance with a subpoena for production of documents, but there is no evidence that any subpoena has been issued to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Cal. Govt. Code Section 6250 merely states that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
Defendants, however, provide no explanation how access to Plaintiff’s prison records in a private lawsuit concerns “the people’s business.” Finally, Plaintiff points to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s website, which states that public records maintained by the Department are available for inspection. Clearly the records sought here are not public; if they were, Defendants would not need a Court order to inspect them. Therefore, Defendants have not provided competent legal authority for the Court to order the production of Plaintiff’s state prison records. Even assuming there was a statutory authority permitting the Court to order the production of these records under these circumstances, Defendants have not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s privacy should be so invaded, as discussed above. Therefore, the request for a court order directing release of all of Plaintiff’s state prison records is also be DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Dated: August 22, 2014

_______________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court