(PS) Schmitz v. Asman
2:20-cv-00195
| E.D. Cal. | Feb 16, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs, parents of William Schmitz, allege constitutionally inadequate medical and mental health care caused William’s death from a methamphetamine overdose in prison in 2019.
- Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to Dr. Michael Golding (former defendant, CDCR’s Chief Psychiatrist) to produce documents, including materials from a related prison class action (Coleman v. Newsom) and other internal communications.
- Defendants (including multiple prison officials and medical staff) moved for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to limit discovery, citing concerns over privilege, irrelevance, and burden.
- The court previously addressed similar whistleblower materials and ongoing class action matters in Coleman v. Newsom, which underlaid some requested documents.
- Plaintiffs narrowed requests, agreed not to seek privileged information, and suggested in camera review for disputed production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Golding’s investigatory file | Relevant to Schmitz’s knowledge claims and not overly broad; privileged content can be handled by in camera review | Irrelevant, prejudicial, may infringe Coleman jurisdiction/contain privileged info | Denied blanket protection; submit for in camera review, limit to non-privileged, relevant info |
| Production of policies/procedures documents | Relevant; not seeking privileged docs | Should be limited to policies and procedures only, not all related material | Denied limit; all responsive non-privileged docs to in camera review |
| Scope/time of requests for concerns or practice issues | Agree to time limits; info supports claims of systemic failure | Overbroad, disproportionate, should be restricted to relevant time, institution, and care providers | Granted in part; narrowed to Mule Creek, mental health care, and time period (8/30/15–1/21/19), then in camera review |
| Requests requiring legal conclusions | Did not oppose protective order | Improper, asks Golding to opine on legal violations | Granted; protective order issued, no production required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2011) (party seeking protective order bears burden of establishing good cause)
- Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (specific prejudice or harm must be shown for a protective order)
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (broad, unsubstantiated allegations insufficient for protective order)
- San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) (particularized showing required for protection of documents)