Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV17123, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV17123    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Karuna I. Tanahashi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Diana G. Toumah and Dalal Toumah (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  

At this time, Defendants move for an order to compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization form for release of her psychology records.  No opposition to the motion has been received.   

2. Motion to Compel Signed Authorization

Defendants assert that Plaintiff indicated in her discovery responses that she treated for psychotherapy, and that Defendants prepared and sent a HIPAA authorization form to Plaintiff’s counsel for signature, but Plaintiff’s counsel has not returned the signed authorization.  Defendants contend that Plaintiff has placed in treatment and injuries at issue, so Plaintiff cannot block Defendants from investigating those complaints. 

However, in moving for an order compelling Plaintiff to sign an authorization- of which no copy has been provided- for the release of the relevant medical records, Defendants do not cite any authority that specifically gives the Court express authority under the Discovery Act to compel a party to sign an authorization for release of records.  Case law on this particular issue is limited and that which does exist is not clear.  For example, in Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of an action where the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to sign an authorization for release of records. (Id. at pp. 918-919.)  However, in a footnote, the court stated it was not clear why the defendant moved to compel an authorization rather than compel compliance with a subpoena.  (Id. at p. 918, fn. 2.) 

Defendants cite to CCP § 1987.1 in arguing the Court has the power to compel release of the information.  This provision pertains to compelling compliance with a subpoena and states:

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.

(CCP § 1987.1(a).)  Nowhere does CCP § 1987.1 explicitly authorize the Court to compel a party to sign a HIPAA authorization.  Furthermore, Defendants are not moving to compel compliance with a subpoena in this motion, nor do they provide evidence of such a subpoena being properly served. 

It is well established that California courts lack the power to order civil discovery by a method that is not authorized in the Code of Civil Procedure.  (Haniff v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 191, 200.)  The request that a party sign a release for records is not a method expressly or impliedly included in the Civil Discovery Act.  (See, e.g. CCP § 2019.010.)  Moreover, Defendants have not made a showing that Defendants’ efforts to use normal discovery procedures to obtain the records have failed to yield the documents.  Defendants do not address why they cannot or will not follow the procedures that govern obtaining such information by subpoena. 

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of her psychology records is denied. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 26^th day of October 2022