Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 21STCV22866 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV22866, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22866 Hearing Date: October 19, 2022 Dept: 28

Plaintiff Jeo Taymany’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas

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

BACKGROUND

On June 18, 2021, Plaintiff Jeo Taymany (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Stephen Rodi (“Defendant”) for negligence and negligence per se.

On August 12, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Records to be heard on October 19, 2022. On October 7, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition. On October 12, 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) Kaiser Permanente Medical Center; (2) Kaiser Permanente Radiology – Release of Information Unit; (3) Kaiser Permanente – Central Release of Information Unit; and (4) The Urgent Care At Vermont. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions on Defendant and Defendant’s counsel totaling $3,250.00.

Defendant requests the Court deny the motion and impose sanctions on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel totaling $1,020.00.

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 in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant in March 2020. Defendant claims that, according to Plaintiff’s production of Dr. Badener, D.C.’s report, Plaintiff allegedly suffered from lumbar spine sprain, lumbar spine strain, lumbago, lumbar segmental dysfunction, lower extremity radiculopathy, myalgia and myospasms.

Initially, Plaintiff’s counsel asked Defendant to forward copies to his home address due to the ongoing pandemic. In November 2021, Plaintiff gave notice that Plaintiff will be returning to the office. In August 2022, Defendant notified Plaintiff he intended to serve subpoenas on Plaintiff’s medical providers—all of these were mailed to Plaintiff counsel’s home.

The subpoenas seek all documents and records, billing charges, and original x-ray films. There are no limitations as to time and scope. Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s counsel never told Defendant to limit the request in scope or in time. The Court does not find this a compelling reason for Defendant to subpoena such broad records. Plaintiff’s counsel should not have to tell Defendant that Defendant can only subpoena relevant records prior to issuing a subpoena. The Court grants the motion; Defendant will need to serve new subpoenas tailored to the injuries at issue and with a reasonable scope as to time.

Sanctions

The Court will not award sanctions. Plaintiff rightfully filed this Motion to Quash; however, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient time to meet and confer prior to filing this motion. Plaintiff sent an email regarding the issue on September 9, 2022, a Friday, and filed the motion on September 12, 2022, a Monday. There was little to no time for parties to meaningfully meet and confer prior to filing the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jeo Taymany’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas is GRANTED. Defendant’s subpoenas to (1) Kaiser Permanente Medical Center; (2) Kaiser Permanente Radiology – Release of Information Unit; (3) Kaiser Permanente – Central Release of Information Unit; and (4) The Urgent Care At Vermont, are all deemed quashed.

Plaintiff Jeo Taymany’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant Stephen Rodi’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.