Booth v. City of Dallas
312 F.R.D. 427
N.D. Tex.2015Background
- Plaintiff Allison Booth alleges Officer Ryan Lowman and the City of Dallas used excessive force during her arrest on May 11, 2014; the City has answered and Lowman expected to assert qualified immunity.
- The parties agreed to phased discovery limited initially to the qualified-immunity issue; the Court entered a Qualified Immunity Discovery and Briefing Schedule limiting discovery to that issue.
- The City served a Rule 45 subpoena on Dallas Fire-Rescue (DF-R) seeking all paramedic records for care provided to Booth on May 11, 2014.
- Booth moved to quash the subpoena and sought a protective order, arguing post-arrest medical records are irrelevant to qualified immunity and implicate HIPAA-protected information.
- The City argued the paramedic records are relevant to the “what happened” inquiry in the first prong of qualified immunity and that it complied with HIPAA subpoena procedures.
- The Court held a hearing, found the records relevant to qualified-immunity discovery, authorized DF-R to produce the records subject to confidentiality limits, and awarded the City its reasonable fees under Rule 37(a)(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subpoenaed DF-R paramedic records are within the scope of qualified-immunity discovery | Booth: post-arrest medical records created after arrest cannot inform officer’s state of mind or reasonableness of force and therefore are irrelevant | City: records may contain paramedics’ firsthand observations, plaintiff’s statements about injuries or how injuries occurred, and thus are relevant to what happened | Records are relevant to the first prong of qualified immunity and may be produced |
| Whether the City may pursue discovery on qualified immunity before Lowman has pleaded the defense | Booth: City lacks standing to seek qualified-immunity discovery because Lowman has not yet asserted qualified immunity | City: as a party it may seek discovery relevant to any party’s claim or defense; parties agreed to limited discovery on qualified immunity | City may pursue qualified-immunity discovery under the Court’s scheduling order |
| Whether DF-R production would violate HIPAA or require plaintiff’s release | Booth: production would disclose protected health information without proper release | City: subpoena complied with 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e) and DF-R is a covered entity; disclosure for litigation is authorized subject to protections | DF-R may disclose records; Court orders use limited to litigation, return/destruction after case, and directs parties to agree protective order |
| Award of expenses for bringing the motion to quash | Booth: impliedly that motion was reasonable and conferral requirement applies before fee award | City: motion was not substantially justified and City is entitled to fees under Rule 37(a)(5) | Court finds motion not substantially justified and orders Booth’s counsel to pay City’s reasonable attorneys’ fees; procedures and deadlines set for fee application/meet-and-confer |
Key Cases Cited
- Luna v. Mullenix, 773 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2014) (qualified-immunity standards and framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishing modern qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (permitting courts to address qualified-immunity prongs in any order)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (facts must be viewed in plaintiff’s favor in qualified-immunity analysis)
- Mason v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 806 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2015) (two-prong qualified-immunity test described)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (objective-reasonableness inquiry for qualified immunity)
- Rockwell v. Brown, 664 F.3d 985 (5th Cir. 2011) (elements for excessive-force claim relevant to first prong of qualified immunity)