Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCP03351, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03351    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Jesse Rios’ unopposed motion to quash Respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance’s deposition subpoena and subpoena for business records issued to UCLA Physicians Building Office/Health Information Team’s and UCLA Health Systems Radiology’s custodians of record is granted. 

Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with its motion is granted in the reduced amount of $2,010.00.  Sanctions are payable by Respondent and its counsel of record within 20 days.

Petitioner Jesse Rios (“Rios”) (“Petitioner”) moves unopposed to quash Respondent Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s (“Liberty Mutual”) (“Respondent”) deposition subpoena for business records issued to UCLA Physicians Building Office/Health Information Team’s and UCLA Health Systems Radiology’s custodians of record with a production date set on October 30, 2023.  (Notice Motion, pg. 2.)[1]  Petitioner requests monetary sanctions against Respondent and its counsel of record in the amount of $5,540.00.  (Notice Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §1987.1.) 

Background

On October 2, 2023, Respondent issued Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records to UCLA Physicians Billing Office/Health Information Team’s and UCLA Health Systems/Radiology’s custodians of record.  (Decl. of Kashani ¶2, Exh. A.)  The subpoenas seek all documents related to Petitioner from January 22, 2011, to present pertaining to treatment of Petitioner’s head, neck, back, left shoulder, left ankle, and knee only.  (Decl. of Kashani ¶2, Exh. A.)  The date for production of the documents requested by the subpoenas is October 30, 2023.  (Decl. of Kashani ¶2, Exh. A.)    

Petitioner filed the instant motion on October 26, 2023.  As of the date of this hearing Respondent has not filed an opposition.

          Motion to Quash

C.C.P. §1987.1 provides, in part:

If a subpoena requires . . . the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, . . . the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party], 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 such 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.

(C.C.P. §1987.1.)

California has numerous provisions recognizing medical record privacy beginning with the California Constitution, Article I, Section I, which states: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, . . . and privacy.”  (Cal. Const. art I, §1.)  Importantly, “California accords privacy the constitutional status of an [‘]inalienable right,[‘] on a par with defending life and possessing property.”  (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833, 841.)  There are also numerous specific enactments, such as the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code §56.10), the physician-patient privilege (Evid. Code §§990, et seq.), and the psychotherapist-patient privilege (Evid. Code §§1010 et seq.) that apply.

While it is true that there is a party litigant exception to the general provisions of medical record’s privacy, this exception does not open the entirety of an individual’s medical history to exploration.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 [“[P]laintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific physical, mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.”].)

Here, the subpoena requires the production of Petitioner’s medical records that extend beyond Petitioner’s deposition response regarding body parts injured in the accident.  (Motion, pg. 2.)  Petitioner argues his deposition response stated that the only body parts at issue are his head, neck, lower back, middle of shoulder blades area, right ankle, and left knee.  (Motion, pg. 2.)  The subpoenas seek information about Petitioner’s head, neck, back, left shoulder, left ankle, and knee.  Respondent’s subpoena requests seek information that are not tailored to seek information directly relevant to the claims at issue.  (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1390-1391.)   Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to modify Respondent’s subpoena to request information only pertaining to Petitioner’s head, neck, lower back, middle of shoulder blades area, right ankle, and left knee.

          Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to quash Respondent’s Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records to UCLA Physicians Billing Office/Health Information Team’s and UCLA Health Systems/Radiology’s custodians of record is granted as modified to only pertain to records relating to Petitioner’s head, neck, lower back, middle of shoulder blades area, right ankle, and left knee.

          Sanctions

C.C.P. §1987.1 provides, in part:

[T]he court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.

(C.C.P. § 1987.2(a).)

Petitioner requests sanctions in the amount of $5,440.00, constituting the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this motion.  (Decl. of Kashani ¶¶4-6.)  Petitioner’s counsel declares his hourly rate is $650.00 and he incurred 3 hours drafting the moving papers, as well as 4 hours reviewing any opposition and preparing a reply, and additional hour to appear and argue the motion, as well as $30.00 for copying costs, the $60.00 filing fee, and two charges of $75.00 for messenger fees.  (Decl. of Kashani ¶6.)  Petitioner’s motion is unopposed, which nullifies Petitioner’s request for anticipated fees and anticipated costs.  Therefore, the Court calculates Petitioner’s counsel’s reasonable fees incurred on the instant motion as follows: ($650.00 x 3 hours + $60 filing fee = $2,010.00.)

Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for reasonable fees in the reduced amount of $2,010.00, payable by Respondent and its counsel of record within 20 days.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s unopposed motion to quash Respondent’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to UCLA Physicians Billing Office/Health Information Team’s and UCLA Health Systems/Radiology’s custodians of record is granted as modified to only pertain to records relating to Petitioner’s head, neck, lower back, middle of shoulder blades area, right ankle, and left knee.

Petitioner’s request for sanctions against Respondent and its counsel of record is granted in the reduced amount of $2,010.00.  Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  March _____, 2024