Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV18166, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18166    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff Angela Walton initiated this employment action against Defendants County of Los Angeles and Alexandro Villanueva. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint filed July 11, 2022. The FAC asserts (1) Labor Code retaliation, (2) FEHA discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, and (4) FEHA failure to prevent.

            Plaintiff is a detention facility captain employed by the County. (FAC ¶¶ 23, 24.) Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Villanueva personally intervened in Plaintiff’s exercise of her duties and actively undermined Plaintiff’s authority. (Id., ¶ 25.) Plaintiff also filed a Policy of Equity (“POE”) complaint against her supervisor, Commander Josie Woolum in August 2021 for harassment. (Id., ¶ 26.) Shortly after, Plaintiff was demoted and lost her command at the detention center, a decision allegedly made by Sheriff Villanueva in conjunction with Commander Woolum and other chiefs. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against her based on her status as an African-American female. (Id., ¶ 28.) Plaintiff also alleges retaliation as a result of her serving as a witness against LASD, complaining about her supervisors’ violations of Civil Service Rules, and opposing other misconduct. (Id., ¶¶ 29-43.)

            As a result of this, Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered emotional distress. Accordingly, Defendant County issued a subpoena to Plaintiff’s psychologist, Dr. Bettye Ford. Plaintiff objected to the subpoena, and this motion followed.  

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 Plaintiff has placed her medical condition at issue by alleging that Defendants’ actions caused her to suffer emotional distress. (See Vinson v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839 [“a party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy”].) Plaintiff does not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in records pertaining to a medical condition that she has 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 information.

Plaintiff takes issue with the fact that the subpoena seeks any and all medical records without limitation. However, all records from Plaintiff’s psychologist, including from before Plaintiff’s employment, are relevant because Defendant is entitled to ascertain potential pre-existing causes of Plaintiff’s mental condition. (See Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 872 [defendant is entitled “to ascertain the degree, if any, to which particular plaintiffs' alleged mental and physical injuries can properly be attributed to causes other than” defendant].) Defendant is not seeking information on all of Plaintiff’s medical conditions because the subpoena was directed specifically to Plaintiff’s psychologist.   

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel production is GRANTED. Dr. Bettye Ford is ordered to comply with the subpoena within 20 days.