Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV17682, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17682    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 74

Suzanne Ruelas v. City of Baldwin Park, et al.

Motion to Quash or Limit Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Third Parties and Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            Plaintiff Suzanne Ruelas (Plaintiff) filed her complaint on May 8, 2020, against Defendants City of Baldwin Park, Shannon Yauchzee, Rose Tam, Laura Thomas, Robert Tafoya, Manuel Lozano, Michael Taylor, Benjamin Martinez (Defendants).

            On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

            On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC).

            On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash or limit Defendants’ deposition subpoenas issued to Third-Parties Kaiser Permanente and Octave Behavioral Health.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) provides that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein . . . the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a witness] . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely [or] modifying it.”

            “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd (a).)

DISCUSSION

            With this motion, Plaintiff aims to quash or modify a subpoena issued to Third-Party Octave Behavioral Health (Octave) on November 30, 2022, as well as a subpoena issued to Third-Party Kaiser Permanente SCPMG (Kaiser) on December 15, 2022. The former requests, “Any and all documents and medical records pertaining to the examination, care, diagnosis, and treatment of [Plaintiff]” regardless of date and provides a non-exhaustive list of such documents. (Gbewonyo, ¶ 3; Ex. 1.) Meanwhile, the Kaiser subpoena requests “Any and all documents and records pertaining to the medical and/or psychological/psychiatric/mental examination, care, diagnosis, and treatment of [Plaintiff]” and provides a non-exhaustive list of such documents. (Gbewonyo Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. 2.) But the Kaiser subpoena only seeks documents from January 1, 2013, until the present.

            As a preliminary matter, the court notes Plaintiff has put only her emotional and mental health at issue with her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (SAC, ¶¶ 106-110.) Accordingly, Defendants must limit both subpoenas so that they seek only documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s mental, emotional, or psychological health—as opposed to medical records concerning Plaintiff’s general or physical health. Plaintiff also argues that the subpoenas are not sufficiently particularized. Although the subpoenas list specific categories of items sought, they also demand “any and all” documents relevant to Plaintiff’s medical treatment. Moreover, the Octave subpoena does not specify a limited timeframe for what it requests. The court finds the temporal limitation in the Kaiser subpoena reasonable because Plaintiff’s SAC includes allegations of Defendant’s misconduct going back to 2016. (SAC, ¶ 12.) Defendants must also remove the “any and all” language from both subpoenas. Lastly, the court will exercise its discretion and decline to award either party monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a).

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion in part.

The subpoenas to third parties Kaiser Permanente and Octave Behavioral Health shall be limited to only documents related to Plaintiff’s psychological, psychiatric, or mental examination, care, diagnosis, and treatment from January 1, 2013, to the present.

Plaintiff shall give notice.