Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV18404, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18404    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff Heather Toomes filed this action against Defendant UHC of California, asserting causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint alleges that Defendant wrongfully refused to authorize a needed surgery for Plaintiff based on surgery guidelines that were biased and financially-driven.

            On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff issued a subpoena to nonparty Optum, Inc. for personal appearance and production of documents. Optum served objections to the subpoena but otherwise indicated an intent to provide alternative dates and produce documents. Plaintiff contends that Optum has failed to do so.

            On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Optum’s compliance with the subpoena. Optum filed its opposition on November 21, 2024. Plaintiff filed her 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 witness] . . . 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 subpoena requests a PMQ to testify on two topics: (1) Optum’s handling of Plaintiff’s surgery request; and (2) Optum’s corporate relationship with UHC. (Davis Decl., Ex. 2.) The subpoena further requests three document requests: (1) all documents relating to Plaintiff’s surgery request; (2) contracts between Optum and UHC that applied to Plaintiff’s coverage with UHC; and (3) policies addressing whether Plaintiff’s requested surgery is covered under UHC contracts. (Ibid.)

There is good cause for the information given the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff is entitled to ascertain the relationship between Optum and UHC and to determine the extent of Optum’s responsibility for denying her surgery request. Optum’s counsel avers that they have since identified a PMQ and provided dates for the deposition. (Appleby Decl. ¶ 5.) Optum also avers that it has produced documents. (Id., ¶ 6.)

In reply, Plaintiff contends that Optum intends to not properly testify to the topics listed in the notice, nor has Optum produced all responsive documents. (Davis Supp. Decl. ¶ 3.) As noted above, the Court finds the topics and document requests in the notice to be proper. Thus, an order enforcing compliance with the subpoena is warranted.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to enforce subpoena is GRANTED.