Opinion
Case No. 2:03-cv-02584 ALA (P).
May 2, 2008
ORDER
The parties appeared before the Court today via a teleconference to discuss (1) Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's request to discover Mr. Scarsella's mental health records, (2) the situs for taking Plaintiff's deposition, and (3) the schedule for the upcoming trial.
I
As set forth in the Court's April 24, 2008 Order, the Court has reviewed the records submitted by counsel for Mr. Scarsella (Doc. No. 178). After hearing argument concerning this matter, the Court has tentatively concluded that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that medical evaluations of whether Mr. Scarsella suffered stress or a disability as a result of an alleged August 16, 2002 incident with his supervisors are relevant to the matters here. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for Mr. Scarsella's mental health records is denied without prejudice. The Court gives Plaintiff until May 16, 2008, to submit authority to support his position that these mental health records are relevant.
Following the teleconference call, the Court received a copy of a one page letter sent to the Court Clerk of the El Dorado County Court by Pacific Educational Services, Inc., indicating that Mr. Scarsella had completed a twelve hour anger management course on November 14, 2004. The letter does not contain any evaluation of Mr. Scarsella's mental condition or any reports from any medical practitioners or therapists. This appears to be a public record and, therefore, not protected by any privacy interest. It also does not appear to be relevant to Mr. Scarsella's mental condition on June 8, 2002. Accordingly, the Court does not have to address whether what appears to be a public record has to be disclosed as relevant to his mental condition on June 8, 2002. The Court's tentative decision to decline disclosure of the Pacific Educational Services, Inc., letter is subject to reconsideration after receiving Plaintiff's response concerning the relevancy of any of the documents reviewed by the Court.
II
Before this Court is Defendant's motion to take Plaintiff's deposition. (Doc. No. 168). Defendant's motion is denied as moot because the parties have agreed to stipulate to an alternate location to take Plaintiff's deposition. The parties will notify the Court by May 9, 2008, of the stipulation.
III
The parties have agreed to file a Joint Pretrial Statement by June 2, 2008. The trial confirmation hear is set for July 1, 2007, at 4:30 p.m. (Doc. No. 166). The trial confirmation hearing will remain on July 1, 2007, however, it will be at 10:00 a.m. via a teleconference call. Ms. Christine O'Connor, counsel for Plaintiff, has agreed to make the arrangements for the teleconference call.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request to discover Mr. Scarsella's mental health records (Doc. No. 157) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall have until May 16, 2008, to submit authority to support his position that the records reviewed by this Court are relevant.
2. Defendant's motion to take Plaintiff's deposition (Doc. No. 168) is DENIED as moot. By May 9, 2008, the parties shall notify the Court of the stipulated time and place of Plaintiff's deposition.
3. The parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Statement on or before June 2, 2008. A pretrial conference (as described in Local Rule 16-282) is set for June 4, 2008. The pretrial conference shall be conducted on the file only, without appearance by either party.
4. The trial confirmation hearing is scheduled for July 1, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., via teleconference. Ms. O'Connor, counsel for Plaintiff, shall make arrangements with a conference call entity for the conference call, and provide the telephone number and pin to Defendant and to the Court no later than June 2, 2008.