Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV40668, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40668    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff JESUS CARRILLO (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Federal Express Corporation and Christopher Laguna (collectively, “Defendants””) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Defendants move an order compelling Plaintiff to execute a signed release for his medical records from his military medical providers.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. 

2. Motion to Compel Authorization to Release Records

Defendants assert that as a result of the accident, Plaintiff claims injuries to his head and brain, lower back, neck, knees, shoulders, and groin.  Defendants state that Plaintiff has been in the military since at least 2005, and that Defendants have learned that some of Plaintiff’s pre- and post-incident care was with the Military Healthcare System.  Defendants contend that every military medical record from 2005 to the present is relevant to evaluate Plaintiff’s claimed injuries in this matter, and that Defendants are entitled to discover records that may prove alternate causes of injury. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants fail to cite any authority that allows the Court to compel a party to sign a release of records.  In reply, Defendants contend they are requesting the Court to exercise its inherent and statutory authority to allow an expressly authorized method of discovery to be accomplished.  Defendants contend the signed authorizations are required so that the relevant records may be produced,

However, in moving for an order to compel Plaintiff to sign authorizations for release of his military medical records, Defendants do not cite any authority that specifically gives the Court express authority under the Discovery Act to compel a party to sign an authorization for release of records.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, Defendants cite to Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, in arguing the Court has the power to compel Plaintiff to sign the authorizations. 

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 medical 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 918, fn. 2.)  Defendants, in their reply, assert that had the Miranda Court “felt that the trial court exceeded its authority in ordering the plaintiff to execute the authorizations, it’s highly unlikely that the Fourth District would have upheld terminating sanctions based on failure to comply with that order.”  (Reply at p. 2:17-19.)  Nonetheless, as Defendants acknowledge, the Miranda Court addressed the appropriateness of the terminating sanctions imposed in that action; the Miranda Court did not address whether the trial court order requiring the plaintiff to sign a release for authorization of medical records was appropriate or not.  (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 614 [“Cases are not authority for propositions not considered therein.”].)

            Defendants further cite to CCP § 128(a)(5) in arguing the Court has authority to compel Plaintiff to sign the authorizations.  CCP § 128(a)(5) states: “Every court shall have the power to … To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.”  However, 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.[1]

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion 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 15^th day of December 2022