Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV02575, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02575    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL, BILLING, AND RADIOLOGY RECORDS

Motion filed: 10/16/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lories Haddad

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court quashing Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC.’s deposition subpoenas and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. and its attorney of record in the amount of $2,560.00. Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. also seeks monetary sanction against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,445.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff when she slipped and fell on a clear hanger on the sales floor of Defendant’s property on September 10, 2022 (the “Incident”).

On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff Lories Haddad (“Plaintiff” or “Haddad”) filed a Complaint against Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. (“ROSS”) and Does 1 to 100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) General Negligence, and (2) Premises Liability. On August 16, 2024, ROSS filed its Answer to the Complaint. Subsequently, on October 17, 2024, Plaintiff named and served Defendant/Cross-Complainant W Services Group, LLC (“W Services”) as Doe 1. W Services filed its Answer to the Complaint on November 12, 2024. Subsequently, on November 13, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant W Services filed a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 20 for total indemnity, implied partial indemnity, and equitable apportionment.

On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Quash Defendant ROSS’s Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical, Billing, and Radiology Records (the “Motion”). Subsequently, Defendant ROSS filed its Opposition on November 19, 2024, and Plaintiff replied on November 25, 2024.

ANALYSIS

The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “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.  In addition, the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

A.    Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant ROSS requests the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

1.      Temporary Restraining Order issued on February 17, 2023, in Case No. 23CHR000301 (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN” Ex. “1.”)

2.      Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order by Lories Haddad and supporting documents filed on February 17, 2023, in Case No. 23CHR00301 (RJN Ex. “2.”)

Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d) permits the court in its discretion to take judicial notice of the records of any court in this state. Upon taking notice of court records, the court accepts as true only that (1) they were filed and (2) the assertions therein were made; the court does not take notice of the truth of their contents. (See Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374-375; see also Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 916.)

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS ROSS’s RJN only to the extent consistent with the above authorities.

B.     Motion to Quash Subpoena

1)      Legal Standard

While plaintiffs are not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific physical, mental, or emotional injury, “they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit.”  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 (Britt); City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227, 232.)  A plaintiff suing for personal injuries waives the physician-patient privilege to some extent, but this does not make discoverable all of a plaintiff’s lifetime medical history.  (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 863-64.)

When evaluating invasions of the right to privacy in discovery, the party asserting a privacy right must establish “(1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 (Hill).) A responding party may prevail by negating any of these three elements “or by pleading and proving, as an affirmative defense, that the invasion of privacy is justified because it substantively furthers one or more countervailing interests.” (Ibid.) “[T]he party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 533.) A court then balances these competing considerations. (Ibid.) As guidance in balancing these competing considerations, it should be noted, “[o]nly obvious invasions of interest fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Ibid.) When lesser interests are at stake, “the strength of the countervailing interest sufficient to warrant disclosure of private information var[ies] according to the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures.” (Ibid.) 

2)      Analysis

i.                    Subpoenas at Issue

The subpoenas at issue seek Plaintiff’s records within the date range of 9/10/12 – present from the following:

1.      HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: “Any and all documents pertaining to the care, treatment, and prognosis of said patient including but not limited to all charts, histories, intake and demographic forms, physicals, doctor’s and nurses notes, diagnostic tests and test results, consultations, correspondence and prescriptions in your possession that pertain to the individual referenced below. Also include all color photographs or copies of them. Also please include all surgery videos should any exist in your office or under your control. Please also include all paper files and charts as well as all electronic files in your possession.”

2.      HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (BILLING): “Any and all billing statements in your possession or under your control. Please include all bills in reference to treatment rendered by any hospital, doctor’s office and any other type of healthcare provider. Please also include any and all Medi-Cal or Medicare payments and any other type of insurance payments regarding the individual referenced below. Also provide any healthcare provider information. Please also include all billing adjustments, write-offs, payments, payoffs or any other types of activity.”

3.      HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (RADIOLOGY): “Any and all digital images to include X-Rays, cat scans, MRI’s, thermograms, tomograms, ultrasounds, fluoroscopies, and any and all other types of films or images in your possession that pertain to the individual referenced below.”

4.      K.P.S.C.: “Any and all documents pertaining to the care, treatment, and prognosis of said patient including but not limited to all charts, histories, intake and demographic forms, physicals, doctor’s and nurses notes, diagnostic tests and test results, consultations, correspondence and prescriptions in your possession that pertain to the individual referenced below. Also include all color photographs or copies of them. Also please include all surgery videos should any exist in your  office or under your control. Please also include all paper files and charts as well as all electronic files in your possession.”

5.      KAISER PERMANENTE BILLING: “Any and all billing statements in your possession or under your control. Please include all bills in reference to treatment rendered by any hospital, doctor’s office and any other type of healthcare provider. Please also include any and all Medi-Cal or Medicare payments and any other type of insurance payments regarding the individual referenced below. Also provide any healthcare provider information. Please also include all billing adjustments, write-offs, payments, payoffs or any other types of activity.”

6.      S.C.P.M.G. KAISER PERMANENTE RADIOLOGY: “Any and all digital images to include X-Rays, cat scans, MRI’s, thermograms, tomograms, ultrasounds, fluoroscopies, and any and all other types of films or images in your possession that pertain to the individual referenced below.”

(Pl.’s Separate Statement, at pp. 1-4.)

ii.                  Invasion of Right to Privacy

Here, Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas, seeking “any and all [documents],” are overbroad and constitute an unreasonable violation of Plaintiff’s right of privacy as they seek disclosure of records beyond the claimed injuries at issue – specifically, “physical injuries to her head, face, neck, right shoulder, right upper extremity, upper-mid back, lower back, bilateral buttocks, bilateral hips, right lower extremity, and left lower extremity as a result of the subject incident.” (Mot. at p. 8, emphasis in original.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has identified a legally protected privacy interest in her medical records and personal financial information. Furthermore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances.

ROSS opposes the subpoena on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to establish the remaining element – specifically that the production of the requested records would constitute a serious invasion into Plaintiff’s privacy right. (Opp’n. at p. 9.)

ROSS asserts that the subpoena seeks records that are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. ROSS argues that the subpoenas were limited to 10 years before the incident to the present time.  (Opp’n. at p. 4.) Additionally, ROSS disputes that the nature, extent and causation of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, which include 50 separate injuries or conditions allegedly sustained in the Incident, as outlined in Plaintiff’s settlement demand letter dated September 17, 2024:

“1. Cephalgia, 2. Head contusion, 3. Contusion to her face, 4 Possible concussion syndrome, 4. Acute cervical spine sprain/strain with musculoligamentous stretch injury, 5. Cervical radiculopathy, 6. Possible cervical disc herniation, 7. Post traumatic neck pain, 8. Acute thoracic spine sprain/strain with musculoligamentous stretch injury, 9. Possible thoracic disc herniation, 10. Post traumatic upper back pain, 11. Acute lumbar spine sprain/strain with musculoligamentous stretch injury, 12. Possible lumbar disc herniation, 13. Post traumatic low back pain, 14. Acute right hip sprain/strain with musculoligamentous stretch injury, 15. Possible internal derangement right hip, 16. Post traumatic right hip pain, 17. Bilateral hip strain, 18. Head injury, 19. Numbness of skin, 20. Weakness, 21. Right ankle joint pain, 22. Left knee joint pain, 23. Right shoulder pain, 24. Occipital neuralgia, 25. Myofascial pain syndrome, 26. Muscle spasm, 27. Chronic low back pain, 28. Cervical spondylosis, 29. Neuritis, 30. Lumbar radiculopathy, 31. Lumbago, 32. Bilateral knee strain, 33. Cervical spine injury with cervical stenosis neck pain, right arm pain and weakness in the right upper extremity, 34. Traumatic low back injury, lumbar stenosis with back pain, bilateral lower extremity pain and numbness, tingling and weakness in the lower extremities, 35. Decreased sensation on the right side of her face, 36. Bilateral cervical paraspinal region pain, 37. Bilateral trapezial region pain, 38. Bilateral arm pain, 39. Dizziness, 40. Visual changes, 41. Right eye swelling, 42. Anxiety, 43. Panic attacks, 44. Insomnia, 45. Recurrent flashbacks, 46. Fatigue, 47. Chest pain, 48. Nausea, 49. Loss of balance, 50. Nervousness”

(Opp’n. at pp. 4-5.)

            Notably, ROSS asserts that the demand letter indicated Plaintiff “was having difficulty with her activities of daily living such as working, lifting, prolonged standing and sitting, riding in a car, talking on the phone, climbing stairs, sexual activity or caring for her children." (Kokkinakis Decl. Ex. “M.”) ROSS further contends that Plaintiff has put her OB/GYN condition at issue by including “sexual activity” as part of her activities of daily living which have been affected by the Incident.

Additionally, ROSS asserts that the scope of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries extends to several pre-existing conditions that were alleged aggravated by the Incident. Those conditions include pain in her head, neck, right shoulder, right arm, upper back, mid-back, lower back, right knee, left knee and headaches. (Opp’n. at p. 6.)

Moreover, ROSS points out that Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with conditions beyond those specified in the demand letter. (Opp’n. at p. 7.) The report from Elite Medical Clinic dated 11/2/22 states that Plaintiff reported she was experiencing dizziness, visual changes, swelling of the right eye, anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia and recurrent flashbacks. (Opp’n. at p. 7, Ex. “C.”). The final report of Ronald Cappi, DC, noted that Plaintiff complained of tension, fatigue, chest pain, nausea, loss of balance, nervousness, sensation that her head felt heavy and had eye pain since this Incident. He also noted plaintiff was having difficulty with activities of daily living including sexual activity. (Opp’n. at p. 7, Ex. “D.”) Shortly after the Incident, “Plaintiff complained of vaginal discomfort on a Kaiser follow-up visit from this incident on 10/24/22.” (Opp’n. at p. 7, Ex. “E.”).

Furthermore, ROSS contends that Plaintiff’s alleged physical injuries are further complicated by the claimed emotional injuries. According to Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatories No. 6.2, Plaintiff alleges headaches and emotional injuries secondary to her orthopedic injuries from the Incident. (Kokkinakis Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. “B.”) Plaintiff has also claimed emotional distress, anxiety, pain and injury in her Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order, filed 5 months after the Incident, against her husband. (Opp’n. at p. 12, RJN Ex. “1” & “2.”)

The Court finds that ROSS’s limiting the time frame to 10 years prior to the Incident is reasonable as Plaintiff has put several pre-existing conditions at issue.

Nevertheless, while Plaintiff’s OB/GYN condition is arguably relevant to the action, the subpoenas seeking “any and all [documents]” are overly broad in scope. ROSS appears to argue that the broad request is justified because “Plaintiff is claiming a litany of injuries in this case, physical, mental and emotional.” (Opp’n. at p. 13.) However, regardless of the breadth of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, the scope of discovery is not unlimited. Contrary to ROSS’s position, the burden is not on Plaintiff to identify what injuries or treatments should be protected. Instead, Plaintiff must only establish that the documents requested by subpoenas constitute a serious invasion of her privacy rights.

Here, ROSS’s use of “any and all [documents]” and without any limitation on scope is overly broad and risks intruding on Plaintiff’s privacy by accessing protected aspects of her medical history that are unrelated to the issue in this case. Such overly broad language inevitably results in a serious invasion of privacy.

The Court also rejects ROSS’s other argument that limiting the scope of the subpoenas would cause logistic issues for the custodians of records. (Opp’n. at pp. 10-11, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) The Court finds this issue unripe for consideration.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that ROSS has failed to negate the elements established by Plaintiff or to prove the invasion of privacy is justified. (See Hill, supra, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 865.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Defendant ROSS is ordered to narrow the scope of its subpoenas.

C.    Sanctions

In making an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)   

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s actions in bringing the subpoenas were made in good faith.  Likewise, the Court finds that ROSS acted in good faith in pursuing discovery. Thus, sanctions are not warranted. 

Accordingly, both Plaintiff’s and ROSS’s requests for sanctions are denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Lories Haddad’s Motion to Quash Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC.’s subpoenas for Medical, Billing, and Radiology Records is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lories Haddad’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC.’s request for monetary sanction is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.