Villareal v. City Of San Jose

Background

January Nicole Villareal alleges that defendant Dominguez physically and sexually assaulted her after her arrest on December 16, 2021, on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. She produced medical records to the defendants subject to a stipulated protective order. The order limited use of the records to this civil action and limited access to counsel of record and retained experts.

The dispute concerned one page, labeled CSJ1848. It described a telephone call Villareal placed to an advice nurse at Kaiser Permanente on December 17, 2021, and referred to events and symptoms from December 16, the date of her arrest.

Parties’ Requests

Defendants sought permission to disclose the page to Dominguez’s criminal defense attorney for possible use in a separate criminal case in which Dominguez is charged with sexual battery against Villareal. Defendants first argued that the page was no longer subject to the protective order and could be freely shared. Alternatively, they asked for permission to provide it confidentially so the criminal defense attorney could determine whether it contained exculpatory evidence—evidence potentially helpful to the defense—and, if appropriate, help defendants make further arguments about using or disclosing the page in the criminal case. Villareal opposed both requests.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court to protect discovery materials from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense when there is good cause. The party seeking protection must show that specific harm would likely result without protection for each document at issue. If that showing is made, the court balances the interests of the public or other entities against the private litigants’ interests. The court explained that this burden remained with Villareal even though the parties had agreed to a protective order.

Ruling

The court found that Villareal showed likely particularized harm from publicly disclosing page CSJ1848. But she did not show likely particularized harm from giving the page confidentially to Dominguez’s criminal defense attorney for the limited purposes proposed. The court also recognized Dominguez’s interest in identifying potentially exculpatory evidence and the public importance of the separate criminal proceeding.

The court ordered that defendants may disclose page CSJ1848 to Dominguez’s criminal defense attorney only after that attorney signs an agreement to be bound by the protective order and agrees to keep the page confidential. The attorney may not use or disclose the page for any purpose other than assessing whether it contains exculpatory evidence for Dominguez’s criminal defense and, if appropriate, assisting defendants in presenting further argument to this court about the need to use or disclose the page in Dominguez’s criminal case.