Kepler v. NaphCare Incorporated
4:24-cv-00220
D. Ariz.May 21, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Kepler and Casey, on behalf of decedent Mary Faith Casey) brought § 1983 and Arizona state law claims, alleging deficient medical/mental health care in the Pima County Jail resulting in Ms. Casey's death.
- Defendants included Pima County, Sheriff Nanos (the "County Defendants"), NaphCare Incorporated, and various individual health professionals.
- Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery from the County Defendants, seeking information about other adverse patient events and the County's systemic practices.
- The County Defendants opposed, citing burdensomeness, irrelevance, and various privilege objections (HIPAA, attorney-client, Arizona state law privilege).
- The Court reviewed the requests in light of Monell liability and applicable discovery standards, balancing relevance, burdensomeness, and privilege assertions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Discovery | Broad discovery needed for Monell, including other patient adverse events | Requests are overly broad, duplicative, or unduly burdensome | Granted in part (narrowing requests); denied in part (duplicative/overly broad requests) |
| Relevance of Other Adverse Events | County's handling of similar incidents is relevant to policy/custom under Monell | Only Ms. Casey’s case relevant; requests go beyond case facts | Other adverse events within defined date range are discoverable |
| Privilege (HIPAA, Attorney-Client, State Law) | Protective order/privilege log can address confidentiality; federal law applies | Information shielded by privilege (HIPAA, state law, attorney-client, work product) | Federal law applies; privilege assertions overruled unless properly detailed in a privilege log |
| Request for Protective Order | No misuse; discovery is proper | Protective order needed to avoid misuse and undue burden | No protective order issued at this time; Court monitors for any improper discovery use |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (district court discretion in discovery matters)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (district courts have broad discretion in discovery)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing injury)
- Endy v. County of Los Angeles, 975 F.3d 757 (official policy for Monell includes acts of policymakers and persistent practices)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. District Court for District of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142 (proper privilege log procedures required)
- Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (federal privilege law governs in cases with federal and state claims)
- In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 835 F.3d 1155 (federal privilege law applies where evidence relates to federal and state claims)
- Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872 (federal law governs privilege in mixed federal/state claims)