Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV37944, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV37944    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Roseann Ray’s Motions to Quash Deposition Subpoena of Tami Rockholt, R.N., and David Hoenig, M.D.

Having considered the moving, opposing and replying papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff Marika Raven (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Roseann Ray (“Defendant”) for negligence.

On November 22, 2019, Defendant filed an answer.

On August 5, 2022, Defendant filed Motions to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Tami Rockholt and David Hoenig, M.D., both to be heard on September 29, 2022. On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On September 22, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

Trial is currently scheduled for December 1, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court quash the subpoenas served on Tami Rockholt, R.N. (“Rockholt”) and David Hoenig, M.D. (“Hoenig”).

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1: (a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, 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. (b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3(b) outlines that a subpoena for production of personal records must be served on the consumer whose records are sought; it must be served at least five days prior to service upon the custodian of records. This subpoena must be accompanied by a notice indicating records sought, how to object, and that an attorney should be consulted, although this may be included in the Notice of Deposition served on consumer. CCP § 1985.3(e). Section (g) further clarifies: “No witness or deposition officer shall be required to produce personal records after receipt of notice that the motion [to quash] has been brought by a consumer, or after receipt of a written objection from a nonparty consumer, except upon order of the court in which the action is pending or by agreement of the parties, witnesses, and consumers affected.”

As a general rule, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.) When the information sought to be discovered impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play for that person. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover both a person’s personal and financial matters. (Id.) The court must balance competing rights — the right of a litigant to discover relevant facts and the right of an individual to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Id.) For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

DISCUSSION

On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff issued subpoenas on both Rockholt and Hoenig for any and all documents evidencing payment from Defendant’s counsel, any and all documents evidencing any matters Rockholt testified as an expert for Defendant’s counsel, any and all deposition or trial transcripts from the last five years, any and all documents relating to the case in question, any and all documents evidencing limitations or exclusions of your testimony in any court, and any and all testimony lists created in the last ten years.

First, the Court notes that Rockholt is an Oregon resident, and thus must be served proper to Oregon’s rules of civil procedure. As Defendant argues, it does not appear that Plaintiff complied with the requirements.

Second, the Court finds the subpoena is overbroad and makes unreasonable demands upon the deponents. For example, asking the deponents to produce all deposition or trial transcripts from the past five years is a potentially costly and timely process that presents little to no probative value to Plaintiff. The crux of the most of these requests could be understood via asking questions at a deposition, without subjecting Rockholt to an invasive and costly production.  Plaintiff argues that this information is necessary to determining the reliability of deponents’ report and testimony. Plaintiff cites to cases, such as People v. Rich (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1036, that found that the number of times an expert has testified for a certain side is admissible as evidence. However, this information could be obtained via deposition—there is no reason to demand such thorough production. Plaintiff’s right to bring forth potential bias does not entitle Plaintiff to unlimited discovery into deponents’ business affairs, especially as a non-party deponent.  To show bias or prejudice, a party need not learn the details of an expert’s billing and accounting or the specifics of his prior testimony and depositions. Plaintiff can review publications which index the testimony of medical experts. The exact information as to number of cases and amounts of compensation paid to medical experts is unnecessary for the purpose of showing a bias.  (Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 453.)

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant does not represent the deponents, and therefore has no standing to bring about a motion to quash. This is untrue; under CCP 1987.1(b)(1), a party may bring a motion to quash a subpoena regardless of whether it represents the deponent.

Based on the above, the Court grants both motions to quash.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Roseann Ray’s Motions to Quash Deposition Subpoena of Tami Rockholt, R.N., and David Hoenig, M.D. are GRANTED. Both subpoenas are deemed quashed.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.