Judge Audra Mori, Case 22STCV07867 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jaylin Tyrese Gravitte (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Anthony Enrique Saldana and Alliance Delivery and Parcel Transport, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have served 13 subpoenas seeking Plaintiff’s medical records from Plaintiff’s medical providers. (Mot. at p. 2:2-14.) Plaintiff moves to quash the subject subpoenas. Defendants oppose the motion.

By filing a personal injury action, plaintiffs place in issue their past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon. All medical and/or psychological records relating to the claimed injuries are thus discoverable. Evidence Code §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862–864. Normally, information about medical conditions entirely different from the injury sued upon is beyond the scope of discovery. However, medical records pertaining to an unrelated condition are discoverable on a showing of “good cause” if the condition is relevant to the issue of proximate causation. (Evidence Code §999; Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314–1315 [good cause shown by info that plaintiff was blind 6 months before accident].)

In this case, Defendants’ deposition subpoenas for production of business records demand any and all documents, including medical and billing records and x-rays, pertaining to Plaintiff from June 1, 2017, to present. (Mot. Exh. 1.)

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are not particularized to Plaintiff’s injuries and body parts that Plaintiff is claiming were injured as a result of the subject accident. Plaintiff contends that the subpoenas instead seek the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical history, which violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy under California law. Plaintiff asserts the subpoenas should be limited to only those medical, billing and radiology records pertaining to the medical treatment Plaintiff received related to injuries sustained as a result of the instant accident. Namely, Plaintiff asserts he sustained injuries to his neck, low back, upper and mid back, left shoulder, right shoulder, and headaches. Further, Plaintiff contends the subpoenas should be limited to five years before the accident.

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is claiming to suffer from several different types of injuries and ailments relating to the accident, and that the subpoenas have been issued to the medical providers Plaintiff were listed in documents Plaintiff produced in discovery, which Plaintiff also treated with for injuries he sustained in a different car accident that happened roughly seven months before the accident at issue. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s proposed limitations are improper and would be unduly prejudicial to Defendants. Additionally, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s arguments are not supported by the relevant authority and rely on factual inaccuracies.

Plaintiff has an objectively reasonable expectation that medical and financial records that have no relevance to the current action, and in which Plaintiff has a protected privacy interest, need not be provided. The broad subpoenas threaten to intrude on Plaintiff’s privacy rights. While Defendants aver Plaintiff is claiming several different injuries, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff is claiming to have suffered injuries to his neck, low back, upper and mid back, left shoulder, and right shoulder and headaches as a result of the accident. However, the subject 13 subpoenas demand the relevant medical providers’ complete medical records and patient file for Plaintiff from June 1, 2017, to present. This would necessarily include information regarding any treatment Plaintiff has ever received for any condition he may have had whether related to the subject injuries or conditions he is claiming he suffered from the accident. As noted above, there are times when preexisting conditions are of such relevance to the issues presented that evidence relating to these conditions is discoverable. Defendants, however, do not establish any preexisting conditions Plaintiff may have had that are directly relevant to injuries claimed in this lawsuit.

Defendants do not to meaningfully articulate why Plaintiff’s entire medical history, for over five years, is discoverable in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff establishes a protected privacy interest in his requested medical records, and Defendants fail to show that the records they seek are so relevant as to outweigh Plaintiff’s right to privacy. (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

CCP § 1987.2 provides that the court “may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”

Here, given the subpoenas were overbroad on their face, the Court finds sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff is awarded 1.5 hours for preparing the motion at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total attorney fees award of $300. Further, Plaintiff is awarded the $61.65 motion filing fee.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ attorney of record. Plaintiff does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Defendants personally. Rather, the evidence shows that the subpoenas were issued by Defendants’ counsel. Sanctions are imposed against Defendants’ attorney of record only. Defendants’ counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $361.65, within twenty days.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court