Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV05393, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05393    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Yolanda Martinez’s Motion for Protective Order

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

BACKGROUND

On February 10, 2021, Plaintiff Yolanda Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Karl Deeb (“Deeb”), DHI Contruction Inc. (“DHI”) and Roy Debuque (“Debuque”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On May 26, 2021, Deeb and DHI filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Debuque for equitable indemnity and partial equitable indemnity. On July 16, 2021, Debuque filed an answer. On July 7, 2022, the Court dismissed this Cross-Complaint, without prejudice.

On May 28, 2021, Debuque filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Deeb and DHI for indemnity and contribution. On November 9, 2021, the Court dismissed the Cross-Complaint, without prejudice, pursuant to Debuque’s request. The Court also dismissed Debuque, with prejudice, from the complaint.

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order. On September 6, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition. On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 3, 2023

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court grant a protective order against Defendants subpoena to Kaiser Permanente Central Release of Information (“KP”) for medical and billing records and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (“KFHP”). Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $3,000.00.

Defendants request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Misuse of the discovery process includes (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense; (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; and (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. CCP § 2023.010.

The court may grant a protective order to prevent certain behavior at a deposition if justice so requires or to protect a party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. CCP § 2025.420. This includes excluding designated persons other than parties, officers, and counsel. The court shall impose sanctions against anyone who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the party acted with substantial justification.

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.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests the Court grant a protective order allowing Plaintiff the right to review all records held by deponents and redact the records according to the Court’s December 23^rd order, which excluded all gynecological records and limited the subpoena to 7 years prior to the date of the accident. The subject subpoenas, served on May 11, 2022, and June 6, 2022, were properly limited according by Defendants—however, the custodian of medical records issued a declaration stating that Kaiser is unable to exclude any records and can only release medical records by date range, Dr. or department.

Defendants argue that they amended their subpoenas to Kaiser to exclude any and all OBGYN records instead of any and all gynecological records. The Court finds this to be a satisfactory amendment that accounts for the previous Court order.

Plaintiff argues that this in unsatisfactory because Kaiser stated it can only “produce” a limited set of documents based on date range, doctor, or department, rather than exclude a specific department. The Court finds this irrelevant to Plaintiff; Defendants have served an amended subpoena requesting all but OBGYN records. If Kaiser is unable to produce said records, they will provide notice to Defendants, who will then have to work with Kaiser to obtain the records. If parties are unable to obtain records, Kaiser will file a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena in Court. Regardless, the intent to abide by the Court order is there and is no longer of concern to Plaintiff. This issue has already been litigated on the merits and the only remaining issue is production. As such, the Court denies the motion and request for sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Yolanda Martinez’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

Plaintiff Yolanda Martinez’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

            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.