Judge Audra Mori, Case 22STCV09274 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Anthony Navarro and Juel Issa filed this action against Defendant James Joseph Waters (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On August 18, 2022, Defendant issued deposition subpoenas to the following four medical providers requesting Plaintiff’s records: (1) Daniel Zucker, D.C., (2) Diagnostic Imaging Network, (3) Swall Surgery Center, and (4) Mathew Root, D.O.

Anthony Navarro (“Plaintiff”), at this time, moves for an order quashing the subpoenas. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff served the four providers with the motion prior to the designated production date. As of October 5, 2022, no reply has been received.

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas seek the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical history and violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Plaintiff contends the subpoenas should be limited to only those medical, billing and radiology records pertaining to the medical treatment Plaintiff received for injuries sustained in the accident. Plaintiff contends the subpoenas should be limited to the relevant body parts and to five years before the accident.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has placed his medical history in controversy, and that the subpoenas are not overbroad and do not violate Plaintiff’s privacy rights. Defendant contends the subpoenas seek relevant records, and that the subpoenas are already limited to a ten-year period that is reasonable and warranted. Defendant contends that Plaintiff delayed in identifying the body parts at issue, and in any event, Plaintiff’s complaints involve almost his entire body. Additionally, Plaintiff provides that documents have already been obtained via subpoena, so the motion is now moot.

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.

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].)

Furthermore, “Information that is not protected by statutory privilege may nonetheless be shielded from discovery, despite its relevance, where its disclosure would invade an individual's right of privacy. [Citation.] The right of privacy is an “inalienable right” secured by article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. [Citation.] It protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive information regarding one's personal life [citation], including his or her financial affairs [citation], political affiliations [citation], medical history [citation], sexual relationships [citation], and confidential personnel information [citations].” (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1003–04.)

In this case, Defendant’s subpoenas served on the four medical providers identified above demand:

All documents and records stored in any format or method including, but not limited to, all medical records, intake forms, patient completed forms and/or documents, …

All itemized statements of the billing charges and/or consolidated statement of benefits, with diagnostic and procedure codes including all CPT and ICD-9/ICD-10 coding and all HCFA, UB04 and UB92 bills …

COPIES of all original x-rays films, CT scans, MRIs and any other scans or images taken and/or maintained, including a comprehensive list of all dates and body parts of all films, CT scans, MRIs and all other images or scans provided.

(Mot. Exh. 1.) The subpoenas provide the scope of records is limited from August 1, 2012, to present. (Ibid.)

As a result of the accident, Plaintiff is alleging he “sustained injuries to his neck, headaches associated with neck injury, dizziness associated with neck injury, right hand, bilateral shoulders, back, left arm and right, left hip.” (Mot. at p.2:20-22; see also Opp. Exh. B.) Nonetheless, the subject subpoenas demand all documents and records pertaining to Plaintiff from the four medical providers. This would necessarily include information regarding any treatment Plaintiff has ever received for any condition he may have had whether related to the injuries Plaintiff sustained in the accident or not. 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. Defendant, however, does not establish any preexisting conditions Plaintiff may have had that are directly relevant to injuries claimed in this lawsuit. Plaintiff has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his medical and financial records that have no relevance to this action. The broad subpoenas issued by Defendant intrude on Plaintiff’s privacy rights.

Moreover, Defendant offers no evidence or valid explanation for why Plaintiff’s entire medical history for over ten years is necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims for injuries to relevant body parts in this action. The Court finds unpersuasive Defendant’s argument that because Plaintiff claims injury to approximately nine body parts, Plaintiff’s whole body is at issue. Defendant, thus, fails to meaningfully articulate why the entirety of the medical providers’ records pertaining to Plaintiff is discoverable in this action. Therefore, Defendant failed to meet its burden to show that the records it seeks are so relevant as to outweigh Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Plaintiff establishes a protected privacy interest in his requested medical records, and Defendants fail to show that the records for over ten years they seek are so relevant as to outweigh Plaintiff’s right to privacy. (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

Defendant further asserts that “documents had already been obtained via subpoena thus the matter is now moot.” (Opp. at p. 2:10-11.) However, Defendant does not contend that Plaintiff’s motion was not timely filed, nor does Defendant provide the Court with any authority holding that records produced prior to the hearing on a motion to quash makes the motion moot. Moreover, Defendant provides no evidence of whether records were produced in response to all the subpoenas, only some, or only one, and thus does not meet the burden of proving that the motion is moot.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is granted as follows: To the extent that records have not already been produced in response to the subpoenas, the subpoenas are quashed. To the extent that records have been produced in response to any or all of the subpoenas, Defendant is ordered to turn over all documents and records obtained via the subpoenas, and copies thereof to Plaintiff, through Plaintiff’s counsel, within 15 calendar days. (See Cates v. California Gambling Control Com. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1314 [pursuant to CCP § 128(a), Court has authority to compel the return of documents].)

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 and Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer prior to filing the motion, some sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff is awarded the requested one hour for preparing the motion at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour. Further, Plaintiff is awarded the $61.65 motion filing fee as costs.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record. Plaintiff does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Defendants personally. Rather, the evidence shows that the subpoenas were issued by Defendant’s counsel. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant’s attorney of record only. Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $261.65, within twenty days.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court