The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Previously pending on this court's law and motion calendar for January 21, 1010, were motions for protective order in each of these cases, filed by Movant State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs ("DCA"), on behalf of the Board of Registered Nursing, and Board of Pharmacy.*fn1 Geoffrey Allen appeared for movant. Steven Kane represented plaintiffs. Jennifer Dauer appeared for defendant Compass Vision, Inc. ("Compass").*fn2 David Beach and Robert Jassoy represented defendant National Medical Services, Inc. dba NMS LABS ("NMS"). Jeremy Meier and Tom Woods represented third party defendant Maximus, Inc., contractors involved with the above state agency and boards.
The "resisting parties" to the discovery sought are non-party DCA, the nurse and pharmacy Boards, NMS labs and Maximus. Compass and the plaintiffs in each of the out-of-district actions seek production of all documents.
Having reviewed the parties' joint statement and heard oral argument, the court now issues the following order.
In this out-of-district discovery matter, non-party movant DCA seeks to prevent Compass from deposing current or former Board of Registered Nursing ("Board") employees about the plaintiffs' files regarding their drug test results, disciplinary action, and determinations of non-compliance in regard to a drug and alcohol recovery program entered into by plaintiffs who are nurses and pharmacists with a former admitted drug or alcohol addiction.*fn3 DCA also seeks to prevent any acquisition of information in the plaintiffs' medical files in connection with the program, as well as documents relating to the polices and procedures of the Boards.
Plaintiffs, nurses and pharmacists, brought these actions, claiming that regular drug testing through this diversion program resulted in false positives in urine samples, due to use of ethyl glucuronide ("EtG") which is used to detect alcohol. Plaintiffs claim that Compass and its laboratory that performed the testing, "used a new, scientifically unreliable test and set cut-off levels for a 'positive' EtG test too low." Compass in turn filed a third party complaint against Maximus, a prime contractor with the DCA for administration of portions of the diversion program, regarding its administration of the Program.
Plaintiffs do not object to release of their files; indeed, plaintiffs urge that such be done, and to the extent legally germane, have waived any privilege associated with their records. Despite this waiver, the gist of the protective order motions involves DCA's assertion of specific California statutes proscribing release and use of the nurses/pharmacists confidential files, and California's "parent" or omnibus privilege statute which, somewhat less strictly, appears to encompass the discovery and use of all documents subject to privilege under California law.
Because the subject matter jurisdiction for this action is based on diversity of citizenship, the court must ascertain the appropriate law, federal or California, for discussion of the issues. In this diversity action, questions of substantive privilege are governed by state law. Fed. R. Ev. 501; Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145 F.R.D. 683, 687 (E.D.Cal. 1993).*fn5 See also First Pacific Networks, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 163 F.R.D. 574, 576 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Bank of the West v. Valley Nat'l Bank of Ariz., 132 F.R.D. 250, 251 (N.D. Cal. 1990). However, matters going to discovery procedural issues, e.g., preparation of privilege logs, are entirely federal in nature. "Though a federal court in a diversity action is to apply the substantive law of the forum in which it sits, discovery, as a procedural matter, is governed in a federal court only by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state discovery practices are irrelevant. See 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2005 (1970)." American Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Ille, 87 F.R.D. 540, 542 (D.C. Okl. 1978). See also Eureka Financial Corp v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 136 F.R.D. 179, 182; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(5). Determination of relevance is a federal matter.
The subpoenas at issue are attached to the motion for protective order Case No. 09-110,(dkt. # 12) as exhibits A, B, C. (Nursing subpoenas) See also Case No. 111, dkt. # 13, Case No. 112, dkt.# 11, Case No. 113, dkt. # 11, Case No. 114, dkt.# 11. All are subpoenas duces tecum which seek documents and testimony from Board employees. The documents are pertinent to plaintiffs' participation in the above characterized diversion program. For example, "The following documents [request] relate to participation in the California State Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Registered Nursing's ("Board") diversion program and/or probationary program, whether administered by Maximus, Inc. or directly by the Board:" Case No. 09-110, dkt # 12, Exhibit A. The subpoenas ask for two general categories of documents, those specific to the different plaintiffs, and those which request production of policies and procedures pertinent to the nursing and pharmacy diversion programs. All subpoenas ask essentially for the same documents, and testimony relating thereto.
The governing statutes are both specific to nurses and pharmacists, and general with respect to assertion of ...