Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV04410, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04410    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Date:               1/17/23 (8:30 AM)                 

Case:               Orethea Flowers v. Ronald Reagan UCLA Med. Ctr., et al. (22STCV04410)                          

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Orethea Flowers’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas Seeking Plaintiff’s Medical Records, or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Orethea Flowers seeks to quash deposition subpoenas issued by defendant The Regents of the University of California to her medical providers: Charles Kangho Lee, M.D., (2) E Hui-Sun Wu, N.P., and (3) Lawrence Schneider, M.D. These subpoenas request the following medical records:

ALL writings, psychological records and notations of any type, psychological, mental, emotional, cognitive or behavioral tests, test results, analysis of test results, medical records that relate in any way to the mental, emotional, or psychological status of the patient, diagnostic studies, insurance records, billings, payments, charge-off sheets, memoranda, claims, photographs, explanations of benefits (EOBs), any other document contained within the mental health or medical files, excluding privileged and confidential documents, and any other writing within the meaning of California evidence code section 250 regarding or pertaining to Orethea Flowers DOB: 6/7/1996 SSN: XXX-XX-9512 between the dates of January 1, 2020-Present.

(Nava Decl. ¶¶ 3-5 & Exs. A-C.)

In the alternative, plaintiff seeks a protective order governing the publication and dissemination of her medical records.

The Court finds that plaintiff has placed her mental condition at issue. Plaintiff alleges that the alleged harassment at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center took a toll on her mental health. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges that, due to defendants’ conduct, she suffered and continues to suffer from emotional distress. (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 32.) Plaintiff seeks general damages to compensate for her past, present, and future emotional distress. (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶ B.) In discovery, plaintiff identified the three medical providers to whom subpoenas were issued as health care providers who provided mental health treatment to plaintiff. (Newell Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A at Nos. 212.4, 212.7.) Plaintiff attributes the need for mental health treatment to the adverse employment action alleged in the Complaint. (Id.)

Plaintiff linked her emotional distress to defendants’ alleged unlawful employment practices in her discovery responses. By setting forth emotional distress as part of her injuries arising from her employment, plaintiff places her mental condition at issue. Accordingly, plaintiff waived her right to privacy as to the emotional distress she claims as injuries. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859, quoting In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 435 [“[T]he waiver of privilege contemplated by the patient-litigant exception ‘must be construed not as a complete waiver of the privilege but only as a limited waiver . . . with respect to those mental conditions the patient-litigant has “disclose(d) . . . by bringing an action in which they are at issue”].)

Defendant limited its subpoenas to documents relating to plaintiff’s “mental, emotional, or psychological status.” The time period of the documents is also appropriately limited to the period from January 1, 2020 (when several instances of harassment and defendant’s refusal to address the harassment are alleged to have taken place) to the present. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-15.) Based on plaintiff’s allegations, defendant is entitled to discovery to ascertain whether plaintiff’s emotional distress was caused by defendant’s conduct or whether the emotional distress has an alternative cause.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The subpoenas shall not be quashed or limited. However, production of the documents requested in the subpoenas shall be subject to entry of a protective order governing the publication and dissemination of plaintiff’s medical records.  Plaintiff Orethea Flowers and defendant The Regents of the University of California are ordered to meet and confer regarding the terms of the protective order. Production of documents responsive to the subpoenas shall be made within 30 days after entry of the protective order.