Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03072, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03072    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PETITIONER ALFONSO ESPINOZA’S MOTION TO QUASH RESPONDENT PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANY’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA is GRANTED; Respondent must limit its records sought to ten years prior to that date of loss and Petitioner may review the medical records first and then produce them to Respondent; monetary sanctions are imposed upon Respondent’s attorney of record, Linh Cao of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, in the sum of $1,400, which is payable within 20 days of this hearing.

A proposed order has been filed. 

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 8/22/2019. Petitioners, while in the scope of their employment with Forest Lawn Memorial Services, were involved in a motor vehicle collision where a third-party driver was at fault. Petitioners settled their matter with the third-party’s insurance company. However, because the third party was underinsured, Petitioners now pursue a claim against Respondent in an underinsured motorist claim. (Motion p. 2.) Neither Petitioner has a pending worker’s compensation claim.

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiffs/Petitioners ALFONSO ESPINOZA and PEDRO SALAZAR filed a ‘COMPLAINT (PETITION TO OPEN A CIVIL CASE AND TO ASSIGN A CASE NUMBER BY PETITIONERS ALFONSO ESPINOZA AND PEDRO SALAZAR)’ against Defendant/Respondent PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANY. According to the complaint, as an arbitrator does not have power to rule on discovery matters arising in an uninsured motorist arbitration, Petitioners sought the superior court to hear and rule on discovery.

On March 11, 2024, the court issued the following minute order re: Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service; Case Management Conference: “Defense Counsel informs the Court that the parties are set to attend Arbitration in June or July of 2024. In light of the above, the Court Orders the matter set as follows: On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 03/11/2024 is continued to 08/12/2024 at 09:00 AM in Department O at Pomona Courthouse South. Post-Arbitration Status Conference is scheduled for 08/12/2024 at 09:00 AM in Department O at Pomona Courthouse South. The case is ordered STAYED PENDING BINDING ARBITRATION as to the entire action.” (capitalization added.)

On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.[1]

Discussion

Plaintiff files the instant motion to quash deposition subpoenas issued on February 04, 2025 by Respondent Philadelphia Insurance Company. Philadelphia seeking Petitioner Alfonso Espinoza’s private medical information from Kaiser Permanente and S.C.P.M.G Radiology.

Here, the court agrees with Petitioner that Respondent’s subpoenas are overbroad.

First, the automobile collision at issue in this case occurred on August 22, 2019 such that records dating to his birth are irrelevant. (See Motion generally, citing Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th at 1008.) With that, Respondent must limit their subpoena from August 22, 2009 to the present, which allows for 10 years prior to the collision date, which the court is authorized to do so pursuant Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 (a)-(b).

Second, as for limiting body parts, Petitioner argues that Respondent failed to limit its records sought to body parts that are at issue in this case. As identified in Petitioner’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.2, Petitioner sustained injuries to his head, neck, upper back, lower back, and experienced headaches and blurry vision. However, Plaintiff appears to acknowledge that Kaiser cannot comply with a subpoena that limits the production of medical records to a body part, medical condition, symptom or injuries. The same goes for Respondent’s request for  records that include “all electronic discovery records including correspondence and email records, prescriptions and patient questionnaires.” With that, “Petitioner proposes the parties partake in a first-look agreement, where Petitioner’s counsel will have their first look at Petitioner’s medical records, then produce them to Respondent within an agreed amount of time.” (Motion p. 4:2-5.) Absent an opposition, the court is amenable to that proposition.

Lastly, as for monetary sanctions, Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides that sanctions are available if a party unsuccessfully opposes a motion to quash unless they had a reasonable justification for doing so. Petitioner requests monetary sanctions against Respondents attorney of record, Linh Cao of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in the amount of $2,100.00. Though this court generally refrains from imposing monetary sanctions, considering Respondent’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort(s) and failure to file an opposition, the court awards sanctions. Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,400 (i.e., 4 hours at $350/hour (no reply was necessary such that the court deducts two hours). 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted and monetary sanctions are imposed upon Respondent’s attorney of record, Linh Cao of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, in the sum of $1,400, which is due upon 20 days of this hearing.