Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV05393, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV05393 Hearing Date: February 8, 2023 Dept: 28
THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OF THIS MOTION AND MAY NOT SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.
Plaintiff Yolanda Martinez’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records
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 December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Quash Subpoena for Records to be heard on February 8, 2023. On January 26, 2023, Deeb and DHI filed oppositions. On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 23, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests the Court quash DHI's subpoena for records served on Alliance United Insurance Company (“AUIC”) and Broadspire Insurance Services, Inc. (“Broadspire”).
Deeb and DHI request the Court deny the motions and impose sanctions of $2,160.00 for each motion.
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
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the subject incident, Plaintiff suffers from pain to her neck, back, lower back, shoulder and upper extremities, as well as a shoulder contusion.
On November 10, 2022, DHI issues a subpoena to AUIC for any and all non-privileged insurance records including medical records, correspondence, billing, payments, claims, photographs, explanations of benefits and any other non-privilege documents relating to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the subpoena is vague and overbroad, requesting information that would lead to the disclosure of personal and private information that is not directly relevant to this case.
Plaintiff proposed a limitation on the scope to injuries relating to the areas Plaintiff alleged were in pain. DHI refused the request. The Court has previously ruled on a similar motion to quash a request for records, denying the request to quash with certain limitations. The Court ruled that the subpoena could only request medical years going back 7 year prior to the incident that did not involve gynecological records. The Court also ruled that the subpoena was limited to exclude personal financial information. The Court sees no reason to alter the Court’s previous ruling based on the information provided.
Plaintiff also argues that the subject deponents could not have prepared or generated medical records, and thus could not be a qualified witness to certify said records. The Court finds this to be a non-issue for Plaintiff. Should deponents not have the medical records, they will provide an affidavit of no records. DHI will be the party responsible for verifying and certifying these medical records, should DHI choose to rely upon said records.
The Court rules the motions to quash are denied, except as to the following limitations: the subpoenaed parties are not to provide information about Plaintiff’s personal financial information, medical records or claims from more than 7 years prior to the incident, or any medical records or claims regarding gynecological health or treatment.
The Court will not award sanctions. Although the Court has not quashed the subpoenas in full, the Court will limit the subpoenas—both sides have merit in bringing and opposing the motions.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Yolanda Martinez’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records is DENIED, in part. The Court limits the subpoenas with the following limitations: the subpoenaed parties are not to provide information about Plaintiff’s personal financial information, medical records or claims from more than 7 years prior to the incident, or any medical records or claims regarding gynecological health or treatment.
Defendants’ 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 ORDERED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OF THIS MOTION AND MAY NOT SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.