Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV19827, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19827    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Latina Young initiated this action against Defendant Nancy Watson. The Court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrers to the original complaint and First Amended Complaint, finding that the pleadings failed to plead sufficient facts and were uncertain. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on February 21, 2023, alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) general negligence, (3) intentional tort, and (4) premises liability. On April 28, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend as to every cause of action except premises liability. Plaintiff’s remaining claim is based on allegations that Defendant knowingly allowed Plaintiff to be sexually assaulted by other tenants.  

            On March 29, April 5, and April 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a total of 18 motions to quash or modify subpoenas issued to her medical providers. The motions are currently scheduled to be heard on dates ranging from April 22, 2024 to May 17, 2024. In the interests of judicial economy, and because the motions are substantively identical, all 18 motions are advanced and heard on this date (April 22, 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

The subpoenas seek all medical records pertaining to Plaintiff from the first date of treatment to present. Plaintiff argues that the requests are overbroad and that the documents are protected by privacy and the physician-patient privilege. Plaintiff seeks to limit the records to one day.

“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. (Id. at p. 552.) 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.) “The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)

“A plaintiff who puts his or her medical condition in issue thereby waives his or her privilege against discovery of the medical information by the defendant.” (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1043.) Here, Plaintiff has placed her medical records at issue by claiming a broad range of injuries, including “[h]air removed, traumatic brain injury, back, stomach, right knee, private area (front and back) and more conditions still pending such as cervical cancer.” (Reagan Decl., Ex. A, FROG No. 6.2.) By attributing these injuries to Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has entitled Defendant to obtain evidence disproving the nature, extent, and cause of those injuries. Thus, Plaintiff has not established a reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances. Additionally, Defendant has established the direct relevance of the requested documents, and Defendant’s interest in disclosure outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy interest. The breadth of the subpoenas is justified by the breadth of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries. The physician-patient privilege is similarly waived because Plaintiff placed her medical condition at issue. (See Oiye, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to quash or modify subpoenas are DENIED.