Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV05094, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05094    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Kevin Beltran (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Angel Vargas dba Advance Pallet and Manuel Barron De La Cruz (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Defendants move for judicial approval of Defendants’ issuance of a subpoena for Plaintiff’s school health records from Compton High School.  Defendants assert that Plaintiff is claiming injury to his back, leg, and shoulder as a result of the accident, and that if Plaintiff injured these body parts in high school, where Plaintiff played sports, this would be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.  Defendants state they attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding signing a release for the subject information, but Plaintiff refuses to do so.  Defendants, thus, seek an order allowing Defendants to serve a subpoena on Compton High School, which Defendants attest will be limited to records involving only Plaintiff’s relevant body parts at issue in this case.  The motion is unopposed.

Education Code § 49076 limits access to a student's school records.  It provides, “A school district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order,” unless the request qualifies under certain exceptions not applicable in this case.  (Ed. Code § 49076(a).)  Education Code § 49077 further provides that “Information concerning a student shall be furnished in compliance with a court order or a lawfully issued subpoena.” (Ed. Code § 49077(a) [emphasis added].) 

Here, Defendants have not served a subpoena on Compton High School.  Rather, Defendants are requesting permission to serve a subpoena on Compton High School.  While a court order may later be required to compel production of the records, Defendants cite no authority holding that Defendants must obtain the court’s approval to serve a subpoena on Compton High School.  (See Ed. Code § 49077(a).)

            Moreover, because Defendants have not issued any subpoena on Compton High School,  Defendants’ motion essentially seeks an advisory opinion.  (See Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 170; see also B. C. Cotton, inc. v. Voss (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 929, 947 [“Courts are created to resolve cases and controversies and not to render advisory opinions or resolve questions of purely academic interest.”]; see also City of Santa Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 68-69 [“California courts adhere to the … judicial policy against issuing advisory opinions.”].)  The court will not issue an advisory opinion, as there is a serious danger the correct legal standard will not be applied.  For example, since Defendants have not issued any subpoena on Compton High School, the court cannot review any potential objections that may be made to it after it is served.  (See San Bernardino Public Employees Assn. v. City of Fontana (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1226-27.)  The fact Plaintiff does not oppose this motion does not change the analysis, as Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to review the language of any such subpoena served on the high school. 

Based on the foregoing, the motion for judicial approval of a subpoena is denied.  The court encourages the parties to continue to meet and confer regarding this issue in an effort to avoid judicial intervention. 

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 9^th day of August 2022