Worthy v. City of Berkeley

Background

Richard Edward Worthy alleges that on July 11, 2019, an altercation with police occurred while he was walking, sometimes dancing and playing a silver flute. He alleges that the incident led to his arrest and a psychiatric hold under section 5150. He sued the City of Berkeley, its chief of police, and three other officers on federal and state-law claims.

The order concerned a discovery dispute over the City’s requests for production, which seek documents, and interrogatories, which seek written answers, served on Worthy. Because the disputed information related to both federal and state claims and concerned causation and damages, the court held that federal privilege law applied.

Discovery rulings

- Request for Production 8: Worthy had put medical information concerning injuries claimed in the lawsuit at issue, so he could not withhold responsive medical records, treatment information, or bills based on medical-privacy objections. The request did not cover records concerning unrelated medical issues. - Request for Production 10: The request for documents about injuries to the same body areas was overbroad as to time. The court limited it to January 1, 2015, through the present. It also stated that if Worthy did not claim physical injuries, no responsive documents were required. - Request for Production 11: Documents concerning claimed loss of income were relevant, and Worthy had to produce them if he had any. - Request for Production 19: The request for all documents concerning psychiatric evaluations resulting in custody was overbroad as to time. The court found information about other section 5150 holds close in time to the hold at issue relevant to causation and damages, including medical and counseling expenses and emotional distress. Worthy had said that this occurred twice: in July 2019 and March 2020. - Interrogatory 8: Worthy had to identify mental-health conditions he had when the incident began. The court interpreted the question as asking about conditions existing at that time, rather than every condition he had ever experienced. - Interrogatory 9: The request for the names and contact information of providers who treated or counseled Worthy for those conditions was relevant but too broad in time. The court limited it to 2015 through the present. - Interrogatory 10: The request for every date on which Worthy voluntarily underwent a psychiatric evaluation was limited to 2015 through the present. - Interrogatories 11 and 12: Worthy could not withhold information identifying mental-health providers from whom he voluntarily received therapy or counseling since January 1, 2015, or the approximate periods and frequency of that care. - Interrogatory 18: Worthy’s existing answer about medications used to treat each injury was evasive. He had to provide the requested medication and treatment-period information. - Interrogatory 19: Worthy had to describe health insurance used for treatment of each injury for which he sought damages, including the entity’s name and his member number. The court found this information relevant, discoverable, and necessary for subpoenas. - Interrogatory 21: Because Worthy sought damages for reputational injury, he had to describe each instance in which he believed the incident damaged his reputation.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted the City’s motion to compel and ordered Worthy to provide the requested documents and information, except as modified in the order, within 14 days. For document requests, his obligation covered documents in his possession, custody, or control. For interrogatories, he had to provide information known or reasonably available to him. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying federal or state claims.