Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV17630, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17630    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff Omar Kader filed this employment action against various Defendants. Plaintiff is a gay man who worked for Defendant Southern California Medical Center, Inc. (“SCMC”) as CFO and COO. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on May 20, 2024. The complaint stems from a series of sexual assaults allegedly committed by SCMC’s founder, Defendant Mohammad Rasekhi, from 2018 to 2022. Defendants ModernHR and ADP Total Source are human resource agencies who partnered with SCMC. Defendant R&B Medical Group is another company owned by Rasekhi, where Plaintiff also worked preparing finances. Defendant Sheila Busheri is the CEO of SCMC, cofounder of R&B, and Rasekhi’s wife. The remaining individual Defendants are SCMC board members.

            On October 14, 2024, Defendant SCMC issued a subpoena to Kaiser Permanente seeking Plaintiff’s medical records from October 1, 2021 to present.

            On October 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash. Defendant filed its opposition on November 21, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply on November 27, 2024.

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).) Good cause must be shown to compel a nonparty to produce documents. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)  

DISCUSSION

            Good cause exists for Plaintiff’s medical records because Plaintiff alleges sexual assault and emotional distress in his complaint. (See Vinson v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) Plaintiff argues that production should be limited to psychiatric and mental health records. However, Plaintiff alleges sexual assault and physical injuries in the complaint. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 5, 36, 116, 134.) Defendant is entitled to obtain discovery regarding the alleged physical assault and physical injuries, not just the emotional injuries. The subpoena is appropriately limited in time.

            While medical records are subject to the right of privacy, in this particular case, Plaintiff has placed his medical records directly at issue. The records are directly relevant, and Defendant’s need for the information outweighs Plaintiff’s interest in privacy. (See Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) Plaintiff speculates without support that Defendant may use his medical information to intimidate or attack Plaintiff and his family. A protective order sufficiently addresses the privacy concerns. (See See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38.) Plaintiff chose to file this lawsuit and cannot prevent Defendant from conducting relevant discovery based on his personal discomfort at disclosure.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED.