Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV22258, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22258    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff, Ebony Tay, sued Defendant, Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, alleging that following an incident at defendant’s store on January 2, 2021, she was diagnosed with a condition known as Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). 

According to the Mayo Clinic,

“The cause of CRPS isn't completely understood. It's thought to be caused by an injury to or difference in the peripheral and central nervous systems. CRPS typically occurs as a result of a trauma or an injury.

***

Many cases of CRPS occur after a forceful trauma to an arm or a leg. This can include a crushing injury or a fracture.

Other major and minor traumas — such as surgery, heart attacks, infections and even sprained ankles — also can lead to CRPS.

It's not well understood why these injuries can trigger CRPS. Not everyone who has such an injury will go on to develop CRPS. It might be due to an interaction between your central and peripheral nervous systems that isn't typical and different inflammatory responses.”

(See, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/crps-complex-regional-pain-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20371151#:~:text=Causes,-The%20cause%20of%20CRPS%20isn.)

            Defendant served a subpoena on Plaintiff’s primary medical provider, Kaiser, seeking records of her medical treatment since her first visit there.  Plaintiff seeks to quash the subpoena on the grounds that it is overbroad, and seeks records for an unlimited period of time.  Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are overbroad in time and scope.

Plaintiff’s opposition concedes that Plaintiff has only treated with Kaiser for 4 years, so her argument about temporal overbreadth is hypothetical, at best. 

            The scope of discovery into an individual’s medical history is governed by the nature of claims the individual asserts.  The broader the claims, the greater the scope of discovery.    By filing a personal injury action, plaintiffs place in issue their past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon.  All medical records relating to the claimed injuries are thus discoverable. (Evidence Code §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862-864.)  Normally, information about medical conditions entirely different from the injury sued upon is beyond the scope of discovery. However, medical records pertaining to an unrelated condition are discoverable on a showing of "good cause" if the condition is relevant to the issue of proximate causation. (Evidence Code §999; Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314-1315.)  Given the difficulty in determining the etiology of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds Defendant has established good cause and will allow broad discovery.

            The motion to quash is denied.