Opinion
No. C 99-5200 PJH (JL)
November 21, 2003
DISCOVERY ORDER Denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, Docket #89 Denying with Prejudice Motion to Strike, docket # 99
All discovery disputes in this case have been referred by the district court (Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton). Judge Hamilton appointed counsel to represent Plaintiff on March 14, 2003. She previously denied without prejudice Plaintiff's request for appointment of expert witnesses. The cut-off for fact discovery is December 1, 2003. A settlement conference is scheduled before Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on December 22, 2003. The cut-off for depositions has been extended to January 9, 2004, and the cut-off for expert discovery is February 19, 2004. A four-day jury trial is scheduled for July 12, 2004.
Plaintiff's motion to strike and motion to compel production of documents came on for hearing November 19, 2003. Bernard Smyth and Grant P. Fondo, Cooley Godward, appeared for Plaintiff. Francis Conway appeared for Defendant R.O. Cannon. Deputy Attorney General Barbara Sutliffe appeared for the eight other Defendants.
The Court considered the written pleadings and oral argument of counsel and the record in this case and hereby denies Plaintiff's motion to strike and denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
Plaintiff is seeking discovery which is outside the scope of the Summary Judgment Order. The discovery he proposes could jeopardize the ongoing work of the administrators of the consent decree in Madrid v. Gomez (C-90-3064 TEH, N.D.Cal.)
In the Summary Judgment Order the district court found triable issues of fact with respect to 1) whether Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by delaying treatment with interferon for eighteen months between the liver biopsy results and the start of treatment; 2) whether Defendants showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by denying him interferon on the grounds that he had previously missed medical appointments and, 3) the extent of injury Plaintiff suffered as a result of the delay in treatment. (Summary Judgement Order at pages 7-11).
Plaintiff seeks highly confidential documents in other inmates' medical records and Corrections staff personnel files. Plaintiff must narrow the scope of his requests to reflect the parameters of his case as defined in the Summary Judgment Order.
In addition, Plaintiff's discovery forays appear to be jeopardizing the delicate negotiations between the administrators of the class action in Madrid v. Gomez and Department of Corrections medical and administrative personnel. Plaintiff herein is a member of the class in that case, and there is potential overlaps between the cases which has not been presented to the trial court.
Also, the Special Master in the class action, John Hagar, referred Plaintiff's case to the HCV (Hepatitis C Virus) Panel, after receiving letters from Plaintiff and his attorney.
Five physicians, all having some degree of expertise in correctional health care related to HCV, reviewed and discussed Plaintiff's medical care. They concluded, unanimously, that
"(1) PBSB was in compliance with the Court approved HCV policy when denying combination drug therapy in this case and
"(2) there is no medical reason for an exception to the existing treatment standard in this specific case."
The Special Master in the Madrid case is of the opinion that Plaintiff's continued demands for discovery jeopardize the medical care of other PBSB prisoners, as well as efforts to improve inmate medical care statewide under the consent decree in the Plata v. Davis case, also involving a consent decree signed by Judge Henderson (See Supplement to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel at Ex. H., letters of John Hagar, Special Master, Madrid v. Gomez, C-90-3094 TEH)
Scope of Discovery After Summary Judgment
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Hamilton's denial of Defendants' claim of qualified immunity for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Judge Hamilton found the following triable issues of fact:
Whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in the following ways:
1) The eighteen month delay between the liver biopsy results and Plaintiff's receipt of interferon in October 2000 — the court found that the earlier seven month delay between Plaintiff's official diagnosis and the liver biopsy does not, as a matter of law, amount to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. However, the eighteen month delay, coupled with Defendants' unexplained failure to communicate with mental health professionals about Plaintiff's condition during that time, yields a triable issue of fact whether Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by failing to administer interferon sooner;
2) Defendants' denial of treatment for a potentially life threatening illness on the basis that Plaintiff had missed medical appointments raises issues of fact arguably relevant to the question whether they acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs;
3) Plaintiff's medical records and laboratory reports between 1998 and 2000 show that during the time he was denied interferon treatment he experienced adverse health effects as a result of the hepatitis C. His ALT and AST levels remained elevated during this entire period, and the ALT level is a prime indicator of the level of inflammation in the liver. Also during this period, Plaintiff had numerous chronic care appointments specifically related to his hepatitis C infection, and complained on many occasions that he was constantly suffering symptomatic manifestations of hepatitis C, including abdominal pain, chronic fatigue, nausea, night sweats, fever, mental confusion and depression. He received blood tests and x-rays in response to these complaints. Thus, Plaintiff has raised triable issues of fact regarding the extent of injury he suffered because of the delay in interferon treatment. (Summary Judgement Order at pages 7-11)
Judge Hamilton also commented on Plaintiff's need for "expert medical testimony and the presentation thereof." (Order at page 15) At the hearing of this motion, Plaintiff's counsel indicated he has not yet secured on expert to substantiate Plaintiff's theory of the case.
Factual Background
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Pelican Bay State prison (PBSP) and has chronic Hepatitis C, schizoaffective disorder, severe depression and suicidal ideation (also diagnosed as obsessive compulsive disorder). Plaintiff was transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison ("PBSP") on August 26, 1998. Upon his admission to PBSP, Plaintiff advised medical staff that he had Hepatitis C. He sought interferon treatment for his illness. Plaintiff asserts that he underwent a psychiatric evaluation which concluded that he could tolerate interferon treatment, despite its having psychiatric side effects. A decision was made to postpone administering interferon to Plaintiff for a period of approximately 18 months because of the adverse side effects of interferon treatment. In October 2000, Plaintiff began receiving interferon treatment.
Procedural Background
Plaintiff brought this civil rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants' deliberate policies and practices constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants include: Cal Terhune, former Director of the Department of Corrections; Gregory Harding, an administrator with the Department of Corrections; Robert Ayers, former warden at PBSP; Linda Melching, former Chief of the Department of Corrections Inmate Appeals Branch; Dr. D. W. Winslow, Chief Medical Officer at PBSP; Dr. Kevin Johns, staff physician and surgeon at PBSP; and Dr. Everett Allen, staff physician at PBSP. Plaintiff is suing these Defendants in both their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff asserts that due to cost saving measures, a deficient health care system, and Defendants' deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical condition, Defendants refused to prescribe interferon to treat his Hepatitis C illness. Plaintiff further contends that the Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act because of their refusal to provide him with interferon treatment due to his mental illness.
This Motion
The parties appeared for a Joint Case Management Conference on April 24, 2003. The court granted Plaintiff an additional seven months of discovery, with a discovery cut-off date of December 1, 2003. On May 20, 2003, Plaintiff served each of the Defendants with 33 requests for production of documents. On June 19, 2003, Defendants responded to the requests, but Plaintiff sought additional responses. The parties met and conferred to discuss additional responses, but were unable to resolve their dispute. On October 14, 2003, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel.
Plaintiff seeks grievances, complaints, evaluations, reviews, reports, and related documents regarding the quality of physician care and supervision at PBSP (Defendants' responses to requests 2-7, 9, 17, 19, 21-23, and 26-31). In addition, Plaintiff seeks documents related to other inmates with Hepatitis C, whether they were treated with interferon, and why or why not. Finally, Plaintiff requests Director's responses to inmate appeals regarding medical complaints at PBSP and communications between PBSP and the California Department of Corrections (the "CDC"). Plaintiff claims that this evidence will show Defendants' failure to provide proper treatment for Plaintiff due to the deficiencies in PBSP's health care system, Defendants' knowledge of these deficiencies, and Defendants' disregard of these deficiencies.
Plaintiff's Document Requests and Defendants' Responses
Document Requests at Issue are Plaintiff's Requests Nos. 2-7, 9, 17, 19, 21-23 and 26-31.
Request No. 2: All documents referring or relating to any and all protocols, guidelines, policies, rules or regulations, or treatment concerning any and all prisoners incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison infected with Hepatitis C virus, that were made, prepared, or in effect, at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 2: Defendants object on grounds of burden, privacy, under the Freedom of Information Act ( 5 U.S.C. § 552) and the state Information Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1798 et seq.), physician-patient privilege, and irrelevance of the time frame. Defendants agree to produce responsive documents not protected by privacy.
Request No. 3: All documents referring or relating to the treatment of Interferon for and all prisoners incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison infected with Hepatitis C virus, at any time from January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 3: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is duplicative of Request No. 2.
Request No. 4: All documents referring or relating to the treatment for any and all individuals infected with hepatitis C virus, including, but not limited to, any and all prisoners incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 2002.
Response No. 4: Defendants object to this request as duplicative of Request No. 2, burdensome, irrelevant, relating to confidential prisoner records and outside the relevant time period.
Request No. 5: All documents referring or relating to the treatment of Interferon for any and all prisoners incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison infected with hepatitis C virus who have also been diagnosed with a mental illness, at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 5: Defendants object that the documents are duplicative of request 2, confidential, subject to physician-patient or psychotherapist-patient privilege, burdensome and irrelevant particularly as to the time frame.
Request No. 6: All documents referring or relating to any and all prisoners incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison infected with hepatitis C virus who were provided Interferon treatment between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2002, including but not limited to, why treatment was granted.
Response No. 6: Defendants object to this request as duplicative of Request Nos. 2 and 3, confidential, privacy, subject to the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privilege, and irrelevant, particularly as to the time frame.
Request No. 7: All documents referring or relating to any and all prisoners incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison infected with hepatitis C virus who requested, but were denied, Interferon treatment between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2002, including, but not limited to, why treatment was denied.
Response No. 7: Defendants object to this request as duplicative of Request No. 4, confidential, private, subject to physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privilege, and irrelevant, particularly with respect to the time frame.
Request No. 9: All documents referring or relating to any and all complaints, grievances or reports made by any prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison against You and/or any Defendants, at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 9: Defendants object on grounds of other inmates' privacy, physician-patient privilege, the difficulty of tracking complaints and administrative appeals. Defendants note that Plaintiff's appeals are available to him as easily as to Defendants. Defendants also object on privacy grounds to producing personnel documents for medical staff under the official information privilege, citing Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. Denied, 502 U.S. 957 (1991); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 297-98 (C.D.Cal. 1992). Defendants also object that this request is duplicative of Request No. 8, overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant particularly with respect to the time period. Defendants also claim not to be able to produce information about other defendants.
Request No. 17: Any and all California Department of Corrections' "Director's Level Response" to inmate appeals alleging medical care complaints at Pelican Bay State Prison, which were made, prepared, or in effect at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
9 Response No. 17: Defendants object on grounds of vagueness and uncertainly as to the meaning of "inmate appeals alleging medical care complaints." Defendants also object to producing files or documents related to prisoners other than Plaintiff, subject to the physician-patient privilege. Defendants object to the request as overbroad and burdensome and that it would be difficult to track all the documents sought by this request. Plaintiff's grievances are available to him in his central file. Defendants also object to the time frame as irrelevant.
Request No. 19: Any and all California Department of Corrections' health care review committee meeting minutes and/or other documents made or prepared at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002, referring or relating to complaints of inadequate medical care from prisoners infected with hepatitis C Virus.
Response No. 19: Defendants object to producing confidential documents protected by the physician-patient privilege, overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant, particularly with respect to the time frame.
Request No. 21: All communications transmitted by or sent to Pelican Bay State Prison personnel from the Department of Corrections' central office and/or any division thereof, referring or relating to Hepatitis C Virus, at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 21: Defendants object on grounds of vagueness of the terms "communications," "transmitted," "Pelican Bay State Prison personnel," "Department of Corrections central office and/or any division thereof." Defendants also object that this request is duplicative of other requests, seeks private documents subject to the physician-patient privilege, the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, is burdensome and irrelevant, particularly with respect to the time frame.
Request No. 22: All communications transmitted between or sent to You, Defendants and/or any other persons referring or relating to Plaintiff's complaints, grievances, or reports concerning the treatment of his Hepatitis C Virus by Pelican Bay State Prison personnel, including but not limited to staffing issues, care issues, funding issues, and treatment decisions, at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 22: Defendants object to this request as vague and uncertain as to the meaning of such words and phrases as "communications," "transmitted," "any other persons," and "referring or relating." Defendants also claim to not be in a position to respond on behalf of other defendants or "other persons." Defendants also object on the basis of attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Defendants also object that copies of the documents are equally available to Plaintiff and his counsel, located in either Plaintiff's central file or his medical file. Defendants also object on grounds of burden, irrelevance, particularly as to the time period.
Request No. 23: All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff's complaints, grievances, or reports concerning the treatment of his Hepatitis C Virus infection by Pelican Bay State Prison personnel, including but not limited to staffing issues, care issues, funding issues, and treatment decisions, at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 23: Defendants object to the vagueness of the terms "referring or relating to" and "report." Defendants also object that this request is duplicative of Request No. 22. Defendants also object on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Defendants also object on grounds of vagueness, burden, confidentiality and irrelevance, particularly as to the time frame. Defendants agree to produce Plaintiff's prison central file and medical file, if counsel sends a signed release from Plaintiff to the Litigation Coordinator at PBSB. Request N. 26: All Pelican Bay State Prison Internal Affairs Investigation Reports, referring or relating to You or any of the Defendants, that were made, prepared, or in effect at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 26: Defendants object that these reports, if they exist, are official information and protected from disclosure under both federal and California law. In cases such as this, "courts must weigh potential benefits of disclosure against potential disadvantages; if the latter is greater, the official information privilege may bar discovery." Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D., 292, 297-98 (C.D. Cal.992) (citing Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034). "Such balancing should be conducted on a case by case basis, determining what weight each relevant consideration deserves in the fact specific situation that is before the court." Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 297-298 (C.D.Cal.1992) (citing Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 656 (N.D.Cal. 1987). Defendants object also that the documents are protected, private, confidential, and that Defendants are not in a position to respond with respect to other defendants. Defendants object also that the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, particularly with respect to the time frame.
Request No. 27: All of Your Personnel Performance Evaluation Reports made, prepared, or in effect at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 27: Defendants object that personnel files are highly sensitive private documents, protected by state and federal privacy laws and the U.S. Constitution. They are also privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. Denied, 502 U.S. 957 (1991); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 297-298 (C.D.Cal.1992). Defendants also object on the basis of overbreadth and irrelevance, particularly with respect to the time frame.
Request No. 28: All Pelican Bay State Prison Health Care Personnel Disciplinary Reports referring or relating to You or any of the Defendants, that were made, prepared, or in effect at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 28: Defendants object to this request as duplicative of request No. 27, and for all the same reasons. Request No. 29: All Pelican Bay State Prison Health Care Personnel Quality Improvement Evaluation reports referring or relating to You or any of the Defendants, that were made, prepared, or in effect at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 29: Defendants object that this response is also duplicative of Request No. 27, for all the same reasons.
In addition, Defendants respond:
Madrid v. Gomez, et al., (U.S.D.C. No. C-90-3094 TEH) stems from a class action previously filed by prisoners at PBSP against the Department of Corrections and PBSP officials concerning, among other things, the medical care of prisoners at PBSP. Pursuant to the judgment in that case, a remedial plan was submitted to the Court (Hon. Thelton Henderson) in October 1996 and was approved by the Court March 10, 1997, in an order entitled "Remedial Order re: Medical and Mental health Care Services." (Copy attached as Ex. A to Defendants' discovery responses). All modifications to the policies and procedures are set firth as supplements to the Remedial Plan and are also filed with the Court as part of the Madrid case.
Request No. 30: All Pelican Bay State Prison Health Care Personnel Health Care Personnel Grievance Reports referring or relating to you or any of the Defendants, that were made, prepared, or in effect at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
Response No. 30: Defendants object on the grounds of vagueness and uncertainty of the term "Pelican Bay State Prison Health Care Personnel Grievance Reports." Defendants object on grounds that personnel files are sensitive and highly confidential, protected by state and federal privacy law. (Citing Sanchez and Miller). Defendants also object on grounds of overbreadth and irrelevance. Defendants also object to producing documents relating to other prisoners which are confidential and protected or subject to the physician-patient privilege. Defendants also claim portions of the time frame are irrelevant.
Request No. 31: All Pelican Bay State Prison Inmate Appeals, and First and Second Level Appeal Responses referring or relating to treatment for Hepatitis C Virus, filed at any time from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002. Response No. 31: Defendants object on grounds of privacy, the physician-patient privilege, and tracking problems. Plaintiff's grievances are available in his central file. Defendants also object on grounds of overbreadth, burden and irrelevance, particularly with respect to the time frame.
Defendants' Production of Documents
Defendants claim to have produced over 700 pages of documents relating to the treatment of Plaintiff while at PBSP for his Hepatitis C condition. Defendants also claim to have produced copies of evolving protocols, guidelines, and policies at PBSP for the treatment of inmates with Hepatitis C; all documents referring or relating to the Department's medical standards of care; all Departmental epidemiological reports specifically referring to or relating to the number of inmates infected with Hepatitis C; and all PBSP pharmacy and therapeutic committee meeting minutes referring to or relating to Hepatitis C.
In response to Request 21, Defendants also agreed to produce all documents from the Department's central office contained in the office files of Defendant Dr. Winslow referring or relating to Hepatitis C, covering the period of January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000. Defendants agree to provide responses to Request No. 22 and 23, except those protected by privacy.
Defendants contend that documents responsive to Plaintiff's Requests 2, 9 and 17 are as easily available to Plaintiff as to Defendants.
Legal Argument Defendants' Motion to Strike
Defendants contend that Plaintiff filed his motion late and that the motion should be stricken. Plaintiff responds that the stipulation for a briefing schedule between the parties was not signed by the Court and therefore has no force. This is true. Defendants' motion to strike is denied.
Effect of Consent Decree on Discovery in This Case
Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of the consent decree in Madrid v. Gomez, entered in 1997 and continuing to the present. Given that Judge Henderson signed a consent decree and there is a Special Master overseeing medical and mental health care at Pelican Bay State Prison, the interests of consistency require that this court refrain from permitting Plaintiff, also a class member in Madrid, from embarking on a discovery expedition and possibly undermining the progress achieved by Madrid and by the Plata v. Davis case with respect to the health care of Department of Corrections inmates statewide.
Merits of the Plaintiff's Discovery Requests
Defendants claim that grievances filed by other PBSP inmates against Defendants are nondiscoverable due to 1) lack of relevancy, and 2) privacy rights. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the documents requested go to the core issues in the litigation.
1) Relevance
Defendants assert that the information Plaintiff seeks in his Requests, 3, 9, 17, and 21, are potentially prejudicial to Defendants and irrelevant to Plaintiff's claim that he received subpar treatment for his Hepatitis C illness. Defendants contends that the fact that there are grievances against Defendants (who are high ranking Departmental officials) is immaterial. Moreover, grievances are not proof of the underlying allegations. See Martinez v. City of Stockton, 132 F.R.D. 677, 683-86 (E.D. Cal. 1990). Defendants also assert that the official information privilege may bar discovery of these documents. See Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D 292, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992).
Defendants also note that requests 9 and 17 are nonspecific and would include grievances that do not involve Hepatitis C treatment. The requests are directed at all Defendants, including five non-medical prison administrators who work outside of PBSP. Defendants note that the requests cover the time frame of January 1, 1997 to December 13, 2002, outside the relevant time frame of this case. Plaintiff was admitted to PBSP on August 26, 1998. He filed his original complaint on December 8, 1999, and his amended complaint on October 31, 2000.
Plaintiff asserts that the requested documents contain evidence of crucial issues in the case: that there were complaints against the Physician Defendants regarding medical care and that Defendants were aware of these complaints. Plaintiff further asserts that the documents will show deficiencies in staffing at PBSP, poor training, improper budget constraints, a poor review and discipline process, complaints regarding these problems and Defendants' knowledge thereof.
Plaintiff contends that the Treatment Requests go to the Plaintiff's discrimination claim. Plaintiff claims the documents will show that Defendants and PBSP discriminated against mentally ill inmates with Hepatitis C by improperly denying these inmates interferon treatment, that Defendants were or should have been aware of this discrimination, and Defendants failed to rectify it. Finally, Plaintiff argues patient charts and doctors notes showing how patients were treated with interferon and why others were not, are highly relevant.
2) Privacy Rights
Defendants assert that in asking for other PBSP inmates' grievances concerning their medical care, Plaintiff is requesting medical information of other inmates which is highly confidential. Defendants further contend that the sensitivity of this kind of information is heightened when, as here, the illness in question involves an infectious and potentially fatal virus. Defendants state that "the information sought by Plaintiff's is tantamount to medical records, the privacy of which is protected under both federal and state constitutions. Defendants cite to Whalen v. Roe, where the Supreme Court recognized a limited privacy interest in the confidentiality of one's medical records, derived implicitly from the U.S. Constitution. 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977). Further, Defendants cite to Doe v. Attorney General of U.S., for the proposition that information regarding a person's HIV status falls within the privacy protection afforded medical information. 941 F.2d 780, 795-96 (9th Cir. 1991). Defendants also mention Caesar v. Mountanos, where the Ninth Circuit held that the right to privacy encompasses doctor-patient and psychotherapist-patient relationships. 542 F.2d 1064, 1067 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1976). Defendants assert that the five-part test to determine the scope of privacy interests set forth in Pagano v. Oroville Hospital applies here. Defendants claim that under all factors, the privacy rights of other PBSP inmates in their medical information and records significantly outweigh any interests of Plaintiff in the requested documents.
"The court in Pagano invoke a five-part test to determine the scope of the privacy interests asserted in response to a discovery request for medical records. The court engaged in a `conscious balancing of the many interests at stake' and considered the following factors: `(1) the probable encroachment of the individual's privacy right . . . and the magnitude of the encroachment; (2) whether the encroachment of the privacy right would impact an area that has traditionally been off limits for most regulation; (3) whether the desired information is available from other sources with less encroachment of the privacy right; (4) the extent to which the exercise of the individual's privacy rights impinge on the rights of others; and (5) whether the interests of society at large encourage a need for the proposed encroachment. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 618 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145 F.R.D. 683, 695-98 (E.D. Cal. 1993).
Conclusion and Order
This Court concludes that Plaintiff is seeking discovery which is outside the scope of relevance as delineated in the Summary Judgment Order, and that the discovery he proposes could jeopardize the ongoing work of the administrators of the consent decree in Madrid v. Gomez (C-90-3064 TEH, N.D.Cal.). Plaintiff fails to show the relevance of documents which are highly confidential.
Plaintiff has no expert supporting his theory that the delay in providing interferon treatment was improper or injurious to Plaintiff.
The Court balances the relevance of the documents against the privacy rights of PBSB staff and inmates and finds that Plaintiff's requests are not justified at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents is denied without prejudice. The court notes also that Plaintiff's discovery requests must be considered in conjunction with Madrid, which may subsume the relief requested in the case at bar.