Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 18, 2021

L.S. v. Henderson

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:20-cv-04637
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In L.S. v. Henderson, Judge Chhabria granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion, quashed one subpoena, and required a protective order for records from another.

Who this affects

The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain Officer Henderson’s medical records and Long Beach Police Department records, and protected the defendants’ and others’ privacy interests in sensitive records.

What happened

L.S. v. Henderson concerned defendants’ request for relief from a magistrate judge’s discovery order. The plaintiffs had subpoenaed Officer Henderson’s medical records from the VA Long Beach Healthcare System and Long Beach Police Department records about a 2017 officer-involved shooting.

The court ruled that the medical records were protected by the federal psychotherapist privilege, and that Henderson’s lawyers did not give up that protection by failing to assert it earlier. The defendants argued that the federal Privacy Act protected the police department’s records, but the court rejected that argument as a basis to block discovery. The court said sensitive records could instead be protected through a protective order.

Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for relief. He quashed the subpoena for the VA records, denied relief concerning the police department subpoena, and ordered that any records obtained from the department be covered by the protective order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
L.S. v. Henderson · No. 3:20-cv-04637
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Oct. 18, 2021

Background

The defendants moved for relief from a magistrate judge’s discovery order. The plaintiffs had subpoenaed two sets of records: Officer Henderson’s medical records at the VA Long Beach Healthcare System, and Long Beach Police Department records relating to a 2017 officer-involved shooting.

VA Medical Records

The court held that the VA medical records were protected by the federal psychotherapist privilege. That privilege protects confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and a patient during diagnosis or treatment. The court also held that counsel for Henderson did not waive the privilege by failing to invoke it before the magistrate judge. The plaintiffs’ subpoena to the VA was therefore quashed.

Police Department Records

The defendants did not rely on the psychotherapist privilege for the Long Beach Police Department records. Instead, they argued that the federal Privacy Act prevented discovery of those records. The court explained that the Privacy Act permits covered entities to disclose protected records under an order from a court with authority over the matter and does not create a qualified privilege against discovery.

The court nevertheless recognized that medical records involve significant privacy interests. It stated that courts may use protective orders to shield sensitive information from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden. Any records obtained from the Long Beach Police Department as a result of the subpoena were therefore required to be subject to the protective order.

Disposition

Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for relief. The court quashed the plaintiffs’ subpoena for Henderson’s VA medical records, denied the motion as to the subpoena for Long Beach Police Department records, and required any records obtained from the department to be covered by the protective order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.