Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV37277, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV37277 Hearing Date: October 4, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Ana Vallecois’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas
Having considered the moving, opposing and replying papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff Ana Vallecios filed this action against Defendant Pioneer Theaters, Inc. dba The Roadium Open Air Market (“Defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability.
Defendant filed its answer on May 5, 2021, as well as a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Zulma Diaz-Moreno (“Diaz-Moreno”) and Santiago Zarate Martinez (“Martinez”).
On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Records to be heard on October 4, 2022. On September 2, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition. On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for November 1, 2022.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests the Court quash Defendant’s deposition subpoena to the following providers: : (1) LA County – USC Medical Center (Psychiatric); (2) LA County – USC Medical Center (X-Ray); (3) LA County – USC Medical Center; (4) BHC Alhambra Hospital; (5) BHC Alhambra Hospital (Billing); (6) BHC Alhambra Hospital (X-Rays); (7) Pain Chiropractic Clinic; (8) Healthpointe Medical Group, Inc.; (9) Healthpointe Medical Group, Inc. (Billing); (10) Healthpointe Medical Group, Inc. (X-Rays). Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions on Defendant and Defendant’s counsel totaling $2,731.65.
Defendant requests the Court deny the motion and impose sanctions on Plaintiff totalling $4,000.00.
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
Motion to Quash
Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was injured on Defendant’s subject premises on November 22, 2018. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff claims injuries consisting of head pain, neck pain, back pain, traumatic brain damage, post-concussive syndrome, headaches, tinnitus, nausea, dizziness, depression, radicular symptoms in left upper and lower extremities with evidence of spasms and limited range of motion, emotional distress, and cognitive deficits.
Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas, served July 1, 2022, are overbroad and are not narrowly tailored to the injuries in question. For example, subpoena for the psychiatric providers request any and all documents relating to psychiatric, drug, and/or alcohol treatment, while other treating facilities are asked to provide all records or films relating to “the care, treatment, and examination of [Plaintiff].” Only approximately half of the subpoenas provide dates for the range of records, using July 5, 2017, as the starting date.
Parties previously attended an IDC on previously issued subpoenas, with similar issues, and the Court held that the subpoenas should be tailored to Plaintiff’s injuries, should not request psychiatric/drug/alcohol treatment records, and should be limited to 10 years prior to the date of the incident. These subpoenas do not comply with the reasonable limitations imposed by the Court.
Defendant argues that the informal agreement made at the previous IDC was based upon allegedly incorrect information provided by Plaintiff. This is based on the fact that a document from Plaintiff’s neurological consultation with Dr. Eskenazi noted that she has received psychological therapy in the past and has a history of anxiety and depression. When asked in a supplemental interrogatory, Plaintiff identified additional providers where she had undergone treatment in the last five years. Defendant argues that this was unfair, as Defendant requested a longer time period and the Court itself said that 10 years prior to the incident was a fair range.
Plaintiff alleges that she is suffering psychological and neuropsychological injuries as a result of Defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff has therefore placed her prior psychological and neuropsychological condition at issue in this case. Defendant is allowed to explore whether Plaintiff’s claims of a change in her condition in these regards is true.
Sanctions
Defendant’s counsel asks for $4,000 in sanction (10hrs x $400).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Ana Vallecois’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas is DENIED.
Defendant, Pioneer Theater’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay Defendant $1,250 in sanctions (6 hrs x $250) within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
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.