Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Evans v. Tilton

September 16, 2010

JOHNNY EARL EVANS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

(DOCS. 66, 77)

ORDER SEALING DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT E IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(DOC. 60)

Plaintiff Johnny Earl Evans ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants S. Zamora and Youssef for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request to strike Defendants' exhibits in support of their motion for summary judgment, filed February, 5, 2010 and re-filed April 23, 2010. (Docs. 66, 77.) Defendants filed a response on February 12, 2010. (Doc. 67.)

I. Deposition Transcript

Plaintiff contends that Defendants' Exhibit C-1, the deposition transcript, should be stricken because Defendants did not provide the Court with the entire deposition transcript. (Pl.'s Mot. Strike 4.) Defendants contend that this argument is without merit because Defendants lodged a copy of the complete deposition transcript with the Court on January 25, 2010. (Defs.' Resp. 1:20-24.)

Plaintiff was provided with the pertinent sections of the deposition which Defendants relied upon in support of their motion for summary judgment. A complete transcript of the deposition is unnecessary to contest the selected portions of the deposition. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to obtain the entire deposition transcript if he desires it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Plaintiff's request to strike the deposition transcript is thus denied.

II. Plaintiff's Medical Records

Plaintiff also contends that Defendants' Exhibit E, Plaintiff's medical records, should be stricken as they were obtained in violation of the Health Information Privacy and Portability Act ("HIPPA"). (Pl.'s Mot. Strike 3-4.) The Court presumes that Plaintiff refers to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), and specifically, the Privacy Rule. Defendants contend that HIPAA does not apply to the use of an entity's medical records by attorneys representing the entity and its employees in litigation brought by the subject of the records against the entity or its employees. (Defs.' Resp. 1:26-2:3.)

HIPAA prohibits the wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information, defined as information that relates to the physical or mental health or condition of an individual, or the provision of health care to an individual, that identifies the individual. 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6; 45 C.F.R. § 160.103. De-identified health information is not protected under the act.

45 C.F.R. § 164.514.

HIPAA's implementing regulations provide in relevant part: A covered entity may disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding:

(i) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.