(PC) Hedrick v. Grant

1 CARTER C. WHITE – 164149 KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC U.C. Davis School of Law One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB-30 Davis, California 95616-8821 Telephone: (530) 752-5440 Facsimile: (530) 752-5788 Email: [email protected] MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 GAY CROSTHWAIT GRUNFELD – 121944 MICHAEL FREEDMAN – 262850 ALEXANDER GOURSE - 321631 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 11 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SACRAMENTO DIVISION DERRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, Case No. 2:76-CV-00162-EFB KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY TYRONE PARKER, individually and STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER REGARDING 19 PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL Plaintiffs, AND MENTAL HEALTH 20 RECORDS FOR CLASS v. MEMBERS JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of Yuba County; Judge: Edmund F. Brennan Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY, as Yuba County Jailer; JAMES PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, Trial Date: None Set DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD J. “SAM” SPERBEK, JAMES MARTIN, as members of the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendants.

1 On January 30, 2019, an Amended Consent Decree (“ACD”) was entered in this action related to specified conditions of confinement at the Yuba County Jail (“the Jail”).

3 See ECF No. 258.

4 The ACD, Article 15 provides that Class Counsel will monitor the conditions of the Jail to evaluate compliance with the terms of the ACD.

6 Among the conditions to be monitored by Class Counsel are the nature and timeliness of medical and mental health services provided to class members.

8 Pursuant to the ACD, Class Counsel is entitled to review records to assist them in their responsibilities, including medical records.

10 Article 15 of the ACD also requires that on a quarterly basis the County produce to Class Counsel documents and records specified in Exhibit G to the ACD. These records include medical and mental health information. The parties have agreed to a HIPAA- qualified protective order, see ECF No. 188, limiting the use of such records to the current litigation and requiring the return of or destruction of such records upon the termination of this matter.

16 Class counsel has requested that the County produce medical and mental health records for specific individual class members. Since the final approval of the ACD, County has only released such records to Class Counsel if Class Counsel obtained a signed authorization for those records from the person whose records were sought. Class Counsel has submitted numerous requests for medical/mental health records with valid authorizations for the release of such records. The County has produced those records. In cases where a class member has placed his or her medical condition at issue, often referred to as an urgent medical request or emergent medical concern, the County has produced some medical information to Class Counsel without an authorization.

25 The parties have met and conferred on the issue of production of class members’ medical and mental health records in the absence of signed releases by the individual for whom records are sought. Class Counsel assert that Defendants’ demands for signed written waivers from class members at the Jail is burdensome and results in delays before Class Counsel are able to investigate potential violations of the ACD. In addition, some class members are no longer in Defendants’ custody by the time Class Counsel become aware of potential violations of the ACD related to their care or need for care. Class Counsel have no reliable means of locating and contacting such class members to obtain waivers for the release of their medical records.

7 Defendants acknowledges that some courts have found that the need for monitoring a correctional facility’s compliance with the terms of a consent decree outweighs the individual right to privacy of the class members. The authority cited acknowledges the need for a balancing of interests prior to the production of such records. After such weighing, the court may order defendants to produce class members’ medical records and mental health records without the need for a signed authorization. The cited cases are from District courts without appellate review.

14 The parties have discussed the common-law evidentiary privilege set out in Jaffee v Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), and agree that specific findings shall be made indicating that the Court has considered that privilege and determined that it is outweighed by the need for production of documents for purposes of monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the ACD, subject to the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on February 7, 2017, ECF No. 188.

20 Therefore the parties agree that the matter shall be presented to the Court for consideration of the stipulated order. Should the Court agree and sign the order, Defendants will comply with production of documents consistent with this stipulated order.

24 The parties agree that Class Counsel will provide a statement of good cause for each request for medical or mental health records. For purposes of this Stipulation, the term “good cause” shall mean that Class Counsel has articulated a reason for reviewing the records that is related to its monitoring of Defendants’ compliance with the ACD. The supported by good cause.

2 Further, the parties agree that the Court shall extend this order to apply to any third- party contractors with whom the County contracts to provide healthcare and mental health services to class members in the Yuba County Jail.

5 Class Counsel may still obtain medical or mental health records for individual class members by presenting a signed authorization to Defendants that authorizes the release of such records to Class Counsel. Records produced by Defendants to Class Counsel pursuant to a signed authorization shall not be subject to the protective order in this case.

9 IT IS SO STIPULATED DATED: April 27, 2021 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP By: /s/ Michael Freedman 12 Michael Freedman Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATED: April 27, 2021 COUNTY OF YUBA By: /s/ Michael Ciccozzi 17 Michael Ciccozzi County Counsel 19 Attorneys for Defendants 21 FILER’S ATTESTATION 22 I attest that I obtained concurrence in the filing of this document by all signatories, and that I have maintained records to support this concurrence.

25 DATED: April 27, 2021 /s/ Michael Freedman Michael Freedman 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 The court has weighed the competing interests presented by the issue of producing medical and mental health records of class members without the prior authorization of the class member and the need to monitor compliance with the ACD in this case.

5 The Court finds that the need for prompt review of medical and mental health records of individual class members, subject to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on February 7, 2017, outweighs class members’ interests in preventing disclosure of those records for purposes of the privileges and privacy rights provided by federal and state law and the protections afforded by HIPAA.

10 Accordingly, having reviewed the above Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, it is ORDERED that: 12 Defendants and any third-party with whom Defendants contract to provide medical or mental health care to class members in the Yuba County Jail, including but not limited to Wellpath or its affiliated entities, shall produce to Class Counsel medical and mental health records for specific class members so long as Class Counsel articulates in its request for such records a statement of good cause and the time period covered by the request. For purposes of this Order, the term “good cause” shall mean that Class Counsel has articulated a reason for reviewing the records that is related to its monitoring of Defendants’ compliance with the Amended Consent Decree. Medical and mental health records produced to Class Counsel pursuant to this Order are subject to the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the court February 7, 2017.

22 If a dispute arises as to the existence of good cause for the production of requested records the parties shall meet and confer to resolve such issues in accordance with this order. If the parties cannot resolve a dispute over whether good causes exists for the production of requested records, Plaintiffs may seek relief in this Court.

26 Nothing in this Order shall affect Class Counsel’s ability to obtain medical or mental health records for individual class members by presenting a signed authorization to || mental health records produced by Defendants to Class Counsel in response to a signed || authorization shall not be subject to the Stipulative Protective Order in this case.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4|| DATED: May 17, 2021. > P. 6 Sn L A Biet WP EDMUND F. BRENNAN 7 United States Magistrate Judge 1] (3725629.2