Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV00186, Date: 2023-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00186    Hearing Date: July 3, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This action was initiated on January 3, 2022 by thirty-four individual Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief and damages for allegedly uninhabitable conditions in rental units maintained by Defendants. The Defendants each allegedly owned or managed the property at various times throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy. The operative Third Amended Complaint was filed on June 7, 2023. The action now involves sixty-one Plaintiffs.

            On June 7, 2023, eleven of the Plaintiffs filed motions to quash subpoenas for their medical records. Defendant 6317 Flora Ave, LLC, who issued the subpoenas, filed its oppositions to each motion on June 20, 2023. Plaintiffs replied on June 22, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things …, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party] . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a), (b).)            

DISCUSSION

Medical records are subject to the right to privacy. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859.) “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) The court must balance the privacy concerns against the need for the information. (Ibid.) Discovery of private information is governed by the more stringent standard of direct relevance in order to prevent a fishing expedition of “tangentially pertinent sensitive information.” (Boler v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 201 Cal.App.3d 467, 472.)

Here, the information sought is directly relevant because Plaintiffs have placed their medical conditions at issue by alleging that Defendant’s actions caused them to suffer physical and emotional injuries. A plaintiff “may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit . . . .” (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 864.) Plaintiffs do not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in records pertaining to medical conditions that they have chosen to put at issue. (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.) Defendant’s need would also outweigh any privacy concerns because Defendant has a right to discover this information to defend itself against the allegations. Therefore, Defendant has good cause for the information.

            Plaintiffs take issue with the scope of the subpoenas, both in time and subject matter. Plaintiffs propose a five-year limitation on the subpoenas. However, the date ranges articulated in the subpoenas are based on Plaintiffs’ allegations and discovery responses. Each Plaintiff resided at the premises for a different period of time. The scope of discovery depends on the particular circumstances of each case.

This case concerns the tenancies of numerous Plaintiffs over a long period of time. (See, e.g., TAC ¶¶ 43-48 [describing tenancies beginning as far back as 2008 for some of the Plaintiffs at issue].) Therefore, going back five years is not necessarily sufficient. Although Defendant seeks a lifetime of records for some of the Plaintiffs, those Plaintiffs are minors who have resided at the premises since birth. (See TAC ¶¶ 30, 31, 37, 69.) In other words, their date of tenancy happens to match their date of birth, but Defendant properly relied on the date of tenancy when crafting the subpoenas. Defendant is also entitled to earlier records in order to ascertain potential pre-existing causes of Plaintiffs’ medical conditions. Therefore, the subpoenas are reasonably limited as to time.

            As to subject matter, the subpoenas seek all medical records within the specified time periods. Plaintiffs seek to limit the types of records sought. However, Plaintiffs assert broad and general ailments and symptoms in the complaint and interrogatories, such as rashes, hives, allergies, respiratory problems, nosebleeds, headaches, stress, fear, worry, inability to sleep, lack of appetite, humiliation, and sadness. These medical conditions could have any number of causes that cannot be neatly categorized. Limiting the scope of records sought would likely lead to the omission of relevant information. It is not as if Plaintiffs limited their claimed injuries to specific body parts, for example. The subpoenas are reasonable in scope because they are limited in time and were issued only to the medical providers that treated Plaintiffs in relation to the injuries alleged in this case.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motions to quash are DENIED. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification. Production shall be subject to a protective order.