Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 24CHCV00170, Date: 2024-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00170    Hearing Date: August 15, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

Motion Filed: 4/30/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Alice Matsui, by and through her successor-in-interest, Warren Matsui (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Nandini Assisted Living, Inc.; and Narinder Kumar (collectively, “Defendants”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order quashing Defendants’ 4/18/24 deposition subpoena for production of business records, propounded and served on non-party deponent Physicians Preferred Hospice, Inc; or, alternatively, a protective order limiting the documents that the deponent is required to produce to non-privileged documents.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

This is an elder abuse action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 1/24/23, while she was a resident at and under the care of Defendants’ Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, Defendants failed to properly provide care for Plaintiff when her oxygen levels were depleted, thereby causing her significant injury. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24–28.)

On 1/17/24, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) Elder Abuse; and (2) Negligence. On 3/1/24, Defendants filed their answer.

On 4/18/24, Defendants served a deposition subpoena for business records on non-party deponent Physicians Preferred Hospice, Inc., seeking the production of Plaintiff’s complete medical and billing records from 8/1/22 to 2/28/23. (Ex. 1 to Decl. of Cara M. Conover.)

On 4/30/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash the subject deposition subpoena. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

A party may move to quash a deposition subpoena to strike, modify, or impose conditions on a deposition subpoena that makes “unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff moves to quash Defendants’ 4/18/24 deposition subpoenas to non-party deponent Physicians Preferred Hospice, Inc. on the bases that the requests are irrelevant, overbroad, and seek Plaintiff’s private medical information.

Specifically, the document requests seek the following information:

“Complete medical records from 08/01/2022 to 02/28/2023, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically: TeleHealth Records and any recordings, documents, correspondence, correspondence from the patient or patient’s attorney, patient intake forms, copies of health insurance cards and photo ID’s, medical reports, doctor’s entries, nurse’s notes, medication administration records, office notes, progress reports, cardiology reports, radiology reports, x-ray reports, MRI reports, CT reports, myelogram reports, lab reports, pathology reports, monitor strips, physical therapy records, occupational therapy records, case history, emergency records, outpatient records, diagnosis and prognosis documentation, admit and discharge records, notation(s) on any file folder, All emails between physicians and the patient regarding physical complaints, symptoms, and treatment, including secure messages.

Complete billing records from 08/01/2022 to 02/28/2023, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically: charges, statements, explanation of benefits, payments, adjustments, write-offs, lien agreements, Letters of Protection between the facility and patient's attorney, balances paid, balances due, CPT/diagnostic codes, and itemized billing charges pertaining to any and all care, treatment, and/or examinations. All billing emails between physicians and the patient, including secure messages.” (Ex. 1 to Conover Decl.)

A.    Scope/Relevance

A court may quash a deposition subpoena for being overly broad to the extent that it amounts to “nothing more than a fishing expedition” and therefore seeks the production of irrelevant evidence. (People v. Serrata (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 9, 15.) Discovery is relevant if it is admissible as evidence, or “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff argues that “despite the very limited and specific injuries and time periods alleged, Defendant makes omnibus requests for the overbroad production Alice Matsui’s medical, billing and therapy records and other privileged information as to issues that have clearly not been tendered in controversy this litigation.” (Pl.’s Mot. 4:27–5:3.) “Defendant has failed to show even a causal relationship between the documents sought and the subject litigation.” (Id. at 5:17–18.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff, finding that the document subpoena seeks information outside the scope of the instant action, which stems solely from the injuries sustained by Plaintiff due to Defendants’ alleged failure to provide Plaintiff with adequate oxygen on 1/24/23. The Court further notes that Defendants have failed to file any opposition to the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to quash the document subpoena on this basis.

B.     Privacy

Patients have a right to privacy in their medical information under the California Constitution, although this right is not absolute. Invasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the California constitutional right to privacy when the invasion is justified by a competing interest. (Fett v Medical Bd. of Cal. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 211, 221.) Matters that would otherwise be protected by the constitutional right to privacy are discoverable only if they are directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to a fair resolution of the action. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

A party seeking access to constitutionally protected information has the burden of proving direct relevance. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.) “Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy.” (Id. at 1014.) “The scope of any disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed by the least intrusive manner.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s subpoena seeks documents that are not rationally related to the issues tendered in the lawsuit. … mere speculation that past treatment might be a component of the party’s present condition is insufficient to bring the matter within the exception.” (Pl.’s Mot. 6:10–12.) Plaintiff further notes that “Defendant has offered no proof why Plaintiff’s entire medical history, and other privileged information for the requested time period, with no limitation as to the injuries tendered in controversy, is necessary to this case.” (Id. at 7:3–5.) Moreover, Plaintiff argues that to the extent that Defendants seek to discover the identities of Plaintiff’s physicians, “there are obviously less intrusive means to attempt to obtain names of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, such as written discovery sent to the Plaintiff, which Defendant has deigned not to do as of yet.” (Id. at 2:23–25.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff, and again notes that Defendants have failed to oppose the instant motion. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show that the requested documents are directly relevant to the claims in the instant action, overcoming Plaintiff’s privacy rights. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant motion on this basis.

CONCLUSION

 The unopposed motion is granted.