Iii.Federal Courts Have Repeatedly Held That the Federal Interest in Vindicating Federal

III.FEDERAL COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE FEDERAL INTEREST IN VINDICATING FEDERAL RIGHTS SUPERSEDES STATE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY STATUTES. A. Where Federally Protected Civil Rights Are Involved, Courts Have Routinely Required the Disclosure of Relevant Information, Despite the Provisions of State Privacy or Confidentiality Statutes. Where important federal interests are concerned, courts have examined state law privileges and held that privacy interests must yield to the need for relevant evidence. See Carr v. Monroe Manufacturing Company, 431 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1970) (affirming district court=s granting of motion for production, subject to protective orders, of state employment commission=s records in a case of alleged racial discrimination in the employment field), cert. denied, Aldridge v. Carr, 400 U.S. 1000 (1971)). These courts have compelled the disclosure of the identities, as well as other confidential information, of all classmembers and similarly-situated persons. See Lyoch v. Anaheuser-Busch Companies, 164 F.R.D. 62 (E.D.Mo. 1985) (identities of employees and their personnel files discoverable in sex discrimination action); Orbovich v. Macalester College, 119 F.R.D. 411 (D.Minn. 1988) (full personnel file and tenure review file of all faculty members discoverable, despite state privacy statute).1 Full disclosure is most strongly warranted where a case is based on alleged violation of federally-protected civil rights. See King v. County of Suffolk, 121 F.R.D. 180 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (civil rights plaintiffs presumptively entitled to police officer complaint files; state privilege statutes not binding in federal civil rights action); Hurley v. Keenan, 1984 WL 358 *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 1984) (state personnel privilege does not bar release of prison guards

1 This broad discovery rule, and its requirement that confidential information under state law must be disclosed in federal court, is not limited to civil rights actions. See also United States v. King, 73 F.R.D. 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) (defendant=s relevant city income tax returns subject to disclosure in spite of state privilege law); Feminist Women=s Health Center, Inc. v. Mohammad, 586 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1978) (reversing summary judgment in favor of defendants in federal antitrust case, holding that state Board of Medical Examiners records and proceedings are admissible, despite state law barring use of such evidence at trial); Robinson v. Magovern, 83 F.R.D. 79 (W.D.Penn. 1979) (holding in federal antitrust action that although there were strong confidentiality interests embodied in state Peer Review Protection Act, the need for relevant evidence required disclosure). personnel files in civil rights case); Burka v. New York City Transit Authority, 110 F.R.D. 660 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (holding that employees= personnel files are discoverable in spite of defendants= claim of privilege). ABecause the civil rights laws are in part designed to protect individuals against illegal state action, it would be anomalous to permit state law privileges to interfere with their enforcement.@ Id. (citing American Civil Liberties Union v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (5th Cir. 1981).

B. This Principle Has Been Consistently Applied to Require Disclosure of Medical and Health Related Records and Information. The principle of full disclosure of otherwise confidential information in civil rights actions applies to confidential patient information as well. See Lora v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 74 F.R.D. 565 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (granting motion to compel production, subject to protective orders, of diagnostic and referral records of emotionally handicapped children whose rights were allegedly being denied in their special schools). It applies with compelling force to the release of information concerning classmembers and other Medicaid eligible children who are being denied necessary mental health services to which they are entitled under the Medicaid Act.2 The primacy of federal rights and the importance of obtaining relevant information in civil rights actions justify the release of confidential information and medical records in the defendants' possession, custody or control. In the few reported cases where the defendants have invoked state statutory privileges, federal courts have consistently required the disclosure of otherwise confidential information, including medical records of plaintiff classmembers. Significantly, most of these decisions involve persons with disabilities, where state privacy and confidential statutes have been held not to bar the release of personally-identifying information and medical records. Doe v. Meachum, 126 F.R.D. 444

2 As the First Circuit has made clear, this case is one of a long line of ' 1983 actions brought to secure the full enforcement of federal laws such as the Social Security Act. See Rosie D. v. Swift, 310 F.3d 230, 237 (1st Cir. 2002). (D.Conn. 1989) (medical and mental health records, including HIV records of inmates, must be released pursuant to protective order); Garrity v. Thompson, 81 F.R.D. 633 (D.N.H.

1979) (plaintiffs' counsel entitled to full medical records of all residents of state school for persons with developmental disabilities in order to prosecute class action; state statutes and federal regulations designed to protect confidentiality of medical records do not prohibit discovery of relevant information in civil rights case); N.O. v. Callahan, 110 F.R.D. 637

(D.Mass. 1986) (DMH must release full medical records of a significant number of patients of its state hospitals, in response to discovery request in a civil rights action alleging inadequate medical care).

Under both federal and state law, the privacy rights of patients are not absolute. See

N.O., 110 F.R.D. at 641 (citing Commonwealth v. Wiseman, 356 Mass. 251, 262-63 (1969);

Garrity, 81 F.R.D. at 636. For federal civil rights claims in particular, courts must weigh the merits of asserted privacy interests against the plaintiffs= need for the information in light of their claims of violations of constitutional and/or federal statutory rights. See N.O., 110

F.R.D. at 641. When an asserted privacy right in such a case is based on state law, courts have held that the need for full revelation of pertinent evidence outweighs the arguments for nondisclosure. Indeed, A[o]nly strong countervailing public policies should be permitted to prevent disclosure when . . . a suit is brought to redress a claim for violation of civil rights under the Constitution.@ Lora, 74 F.R.D. at 579; see also N.O., supra (plaintiffs demonstrated that production of medical records concerning non-party patients was necessary to full development of facts, in spite of defendants= objections that the records were privileged under state law); Garrity, supra (files of former or present residents at state school for developmentally disabled children subject to disclosure in spite of state confidentiality statutes).