Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV19501, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19501    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Beverly Rouse filed this employment discrimination action against Defendants El Camino Community College District and Arthur Leible. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on August 22, 2022. The FAC alleges eight causes of action arising under FEHA for discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent, and failure to accommodate.

            Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that she was denied the opportunity to telework as a disability accommodation. (FAC ¶¶ 83-88.) Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from various underlying health issues that place her at a high risk of COVID infection. (Id., ¶ 81.) Plaintiff alleges that her medical provider recommended to allow her to continue teleworking. (Ibid.)

            Defendant El Camino Community College District (hereinafter “Defendant”) denies that Plaintiff has a disability that requires accommodation. To prove the point, Defendant served subpoenas to two of Plaintiff’s medical providers: (1) Kimberly Schafer, MFT; and (2) Community Psychiatry. Ms. Schafer is a licensed marriage and family therapist who recommended that “Ms. Rouse is allowed to continue to telework as it will be of great benefit to her.” (Barrera Decl., Ex. B.) Community Psychiatry issued a letter to Defendant recommending that Plaintiff be “allowed to continue telework as company policy permits.” (Pitts Decl., Ex. F.) Defendant contends that these recommendations are conclusory and unsupported by any evidence that Plaintiff actually suffers from a disability.

Accordingly, the subpoenas request the following documents: (1) All DOCUMENTS regarding communications between Beverly Rouse and YOU in 2021 or 2022 regarding reporting of the existence of a disability to Ms. Rouse's employer; (2) All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed regarding Beverly Rouse prior to communicating on her behalf to El Camino College a/k/a El Camino Community College in 2021 or 2022; (3) All DOCUMENTS reflecting that Beverly Rouse had any sort of disability in 2021 or 2022; (4) All DOCUMENTS reflecting YOUR treatment of Beverly Rouse for any disabilities in 2021 or 2022; and (5) All DOCUMENTS reflecting YOUR rationale for forming an opinion that Beverly Rouse needed an accommodation from her employer in 2021 or 2022. (Plntf.’s Ex. B, C.)

Plaintiff presently moves to quash the subpoenas to Ms. Schafer and Community Psychiatry on the grounds that the requests are overbroad, irrelevant, and violate Plaintiff’s privacy.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires … 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 require a non-party to produce documents. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

DISCUSSION

            “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.) If the court finds a privacy interest, the court must balance the privacy concerns against the need for the information. (Ibid.) Medical records may be subject to the right to privacy, depending “upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.” (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) A plaintiff “may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit . . . .” (Ibid.)

            Here, there is good cause for the information because Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from a variety of health conditions, “including, but not limited to, Anxiety, history of breast cancer, and Diabetes type II which placed her at high-risk of COVID-19 infection . . . .” (FAC ¶ 81.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to accommodate her disabilities by refusing her request to work remotely. (Id., ¶¶ 185, 186.) Defendant is entitled to seek information regarding Plaintiff’s disabilities from the medical providers that recommended telework as an accommodation. This information is directly relevant, and Defendant’s need for the information outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy interests. (See Boler v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 201 Cal.App.3d 467, 472; Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)

            The requests are not overbroad. They are narrowly tailored to seek information on Plaintiff’s disabilities for the time period that Plaintiff alleges she was denied an accommodation. (See Plntf.’s Ex. B, C.) Plaintiff erroneously claims that the subpoenas seek “any and all writings including medical records concerning Plaintiff, and billing records associated therewith . . . .” (Opp. 5:25-28.) The requests do not seek any and all medical records and billing records. They are limited to disabilities and accommodations for the narrow time period of 2021 to 2022. Plaintiff cannot withhold information that she has placed at issue by alleging that she suffers from disabilities that require accommodation. (See Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 864.) Plaintiff relied on the recommendations of her medical providers in claiming that she has disabilities requiring accommodation. (FAC ¶ 81.) Defendant cannot be precluded from obtaining the discovery necessary to verify these allegations.

            Plaintiff appears to primarily take issue with Item 2 in the subpoena, which requests “All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed regarding Beverly Rouse prior to communicating on her behalf to El Camino College a/k/a El Camino Community College in 2021 or 2022.” However, this request, like the others, seeks limited information regarding Plaintiff’s purported need for an accommodation. Plaintiff relied on the recommendations of Ms. Schafer and Community Psychiatry in claiming that she has a disability requiring accommodation. Defendant is entitled to investigate the information that these providers relied on in forming their recommendations, which is probative to establishing whether Plaintiff suffers from a disability.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED. Kimberly Schafer, MFT and Community Psychiatry are to produce the requested records within 20 days, subject to a protective order. Plaintiff’s request for a first-look is denied. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.