Villareal v. City Of San Jose

Background

January Nicole Villareal alleges that defendant Dominguez physically and sexually assaulted her after her December 16, 2021 arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Villareal agreed to produce her medical records in discovery under a stipulated protective order. The order required that her medical records be marked “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” used only for this civil case, and viewed only by counsel of record and retained experts.

The dispute concerned one page from a Kaiser Permanente visit on December 17, 2021. The page referred to events and symptoms Villareal experienced the previous day. Defendants asked the court to remove the page’s confidential designation so they could share it with Dominguez’s criminal defense attorney for possible use in a separate state criminal case in which Dominguez was charged with sexual battery against Villareal. Villareal opposed the request.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits a court to protect discovery materials from disclosure when there is good cause, meaning a specific showing that disclosure would cause particular harm or prejudice. The party seeking protection bears that burden even when the protective order was stipulated by the parties.

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s framework requiring it first to consider whether disclosure would cause particularized harm. If so, the court must balance the private and public interests, including privacy, whether the request serves a legitimate purpose, potential embarrassment, public health and safety, fairness and efficiency, whether a public entity benefits from confidentiality, and whether the matter involves important public issues.

Court’s ruling

The court found that the parties’ submission did not sufficiently address those factors. Villareal relied primarily on the stipulated protective order and did not explain how disclosure of this page would harm her. Her arguments instead focused mainly on whether the page contained information useful to Dominguez’s criminal defense and how that question should be evaluated. Defendants sought disclosure for Dominguez’s defense but did not provide a sufficiently complete record for the court to make the required findings.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied defendants’ request without prejudice. The parties were permitted to resubmit the dispute in a letter addressing the relevant factors by January 5, 2024, unless they agreed to another date or resolved the issue without further court intervention. The opinion therefore did not make a final ruling on whether the page should be de-designated and disclosed.