Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01791, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01791    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS is TBD at the hearing because it is unclear of Plaintiff’s current claimed injuries. Regardless of ruling, the court declines to impose sanctions as the parties’ met and conferred in good faith.

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 8, 2022.[1]

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff JERRY ANDERSON filed suit against Defendants SPENCER DUBAICH (driver) and ROGER D. DUBAICH (owner of the vehicle) for (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence and (2) Negligence Per Se [Vehicle Code, §21658(a)].

On August 28, 2023, Defendants filed their answer.

On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash.[2]

On January 25, 2024, Defendants filed their opposition.

Waiting for reply.

Legal Standard

The motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §§1985.3(g) and 1987.1. (Motion p. 2.)

In turn, CCP section 1987.1 provides that, when a subpoena requires the production of documents:

[T]he 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.

Discussion[3]

Plaintiff moves for an order quashing, modifying or limiting the deposition subpoenas for production of business records issued and served on Insurance Company, Tristar Risk Management, and Intercare Insurance Services. (See Proposed Order filed on 11/2/23.)[4]

Each of the subpoenas seek records pertaining to prior claims (3/4/2009 and 10/13/2008) associated with Plaintiff from over ten years prior to the current incident. The requests are articulated as follows:

a. Records (including digital information) regarding Jerry Anderson, encompassing examinations, medical history, diagnosis, treatment, testing, radiology, prognosis, prescriptions, and billing (inclusive of payments, adjustments, reimbursements, and explanations of benefit), albeit excluding documents pertaining to psychology and mental issues; reproductive system; and sexually transmitted diseases.

b. Duplicate original photographs, whether stored on paper or digitally (regardless of who took the photographs) of any vehicle involved in the aforementioned incident.

c. Property damage estimates (irrespective of the author) of any vehicle involved in the aforementioned incident.

d. Written, recorded or transcribed statements of Jerry Anderson regarding the aforementioned incident.

e. Law enforcement reports drafted in connection with the aforementioned incident. (See Motion, Exs. A-C.)

Both parties, focusing on the medical issues not necessarily parts (b)-(e),[5] cite to Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844 as it is a seminal case regarding the patient-litigant exception to the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privilege. “The patient [] is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific mental or emotional injury; the scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court,” observed the California Supreme Court. (Id. at p. 864, emphasis added.) In sum, as applied here, the well-established rule is as follows: While Defendants are not entitled to a “wholesale disclosure of [] [P]laintiff’s lifetime medical history,” Defendants are entitled to all information concerning the medical conditions that Plaintiff has put at issue as it is directly relevant to its defense of causation. (Id. at p. 849.)

Here, however, the court cannot resolve what is relevant medical information (i.e., whether prior medical information from prior accidents has a tendency to make a fact—that Defendants caused Plaintiff’s injuries—less probable than it would be without the evidence) because the parties offer differing accounts of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries.

Defendants explain that Insurance Search Office Reports revealed that Plaintiff made previous insurance claims through the subpoenaed providers for injuries related to synovitis, which is the swelling of the synovial membrane that lines some of a person's joints, as well as injuries to his left and right shoulder, which is congruent with Plaintiff’s current claimed injuries to Plaintiff’s knee, neck and back, the prior injury claims are relevant for purposes of causation. (Opp. p. 5:11-15.)[6]

In its motion, Plaintiff identifies injuries to his neck, thoracic region (mid-back), lumbar region (lower back), and right knee (Motion p. 3:2-6) and in Reply asserts that Plaintiff’s current alleged injuries “are not of the kind suffered over fifteen years ago, when the claims in question were made.” (Reply p. 2:4-7.)

Thus, absent document or stipulation in this lawsuit that identifies Plaintiff’s injuries, the extent of the injuries is unclear.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is TBD. The court will entertain requests to continue for supplemental briefing.   Sanctions will not be imposed on either party.