Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV03287, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV03287    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS

Motion filed: 1/27/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Sierra Canyon, Inc. d/b/a Sierra Canyon School Camp

RESPONDING PARTY: Third-party witness Adam Jelloian

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling third-party witness Adam Jelloian to comply with the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records and to produce his records concerning treatment of Plaintiff Samuel Joya.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged personal injuries that minor Plaintiffs Siena Grace Joya (“Siena”) and Samuel Joya (“Samuel”) suffered on Defendant’s premises on August 7, 2017.

On October 26, 2023, Plaintiffs Siena and Samuel, by and through their Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Ruth Munoz Joya (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), initiated this action. On November 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendant Sierra Canyon, Inc. d/b/a Sierra Canyon School Camp (“Sierra Canyon”), Jumpions, Inc. (“Jumpions”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 100. The FAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) products liability, (2) premises liability, and (3) general negligence. Subsequently, on January 16, 2024, Sierra Canyon filed its Answer to the FAC.

On January 16, 2024, Sierra Canyon filed a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) express indemnification, (2) equitable indemnification, (3) equitable contribution, and (4) declaratory relief.

On January 27, 2025, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sierra Canyon filed the instant Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Records (the “Motion”). Subsequently, third-party Adam Jelloian filed an Opposition to the Motion on April 8, 2025, and Sierra Canyon filed a Reply on April 14, 2025.

ANALYSIS

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.)¿ A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)¿ 

¿ 

A service of a deposition subpoena shall be effected a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).)¿ Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).)¿ A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.)¿ 

¿ 

A “written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail¿or electronic service¿at an address¿or electronic service address¿specified on the deposition record.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.)¿ 

¿ 

A nonparty deponent may be subject to contempt or monetary sanctions for disobeying a court order (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (k)) or for “flouting” the discovery process by suppressing or destroying evidence (Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 464, 476).¿ A nonparty may be punished by contempt (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240) or payment of $500.00 (Code Civ. Proc., § 1992).¿ 

A.    Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Records

Sierra Canyon claims that it served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (“Subpoena”) on third-party witness Adam Jelloian (“Jelloian”) on October 1, 2024. (Thiel Decl. ¶ 6.) The Subpoena sought the production of “Samuel Joya’s psychotherapy records” from Jelloian. (Ibid.)

Sierra Canyon argues that Jelloian’s objection, served on November 11, 2024, asserting psychotherapist-patient privilege, should be overruled because Samuel has waived any privilege in his psychotherapy records by placing his mental condition directly at issue in the litigation. (Mot. at p. 4.)

It is well established that “psychotherapist-patient privilege … is ‘an aspect of the patient’s constitutional right to privacy’ under article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution.” (McGovern v. BHC Fremont Hospital, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 181, 198.) Moreover, “for policy reasons the psychotherapist-patient privilege is broadly construed in favor of the patient, while exceptions to the privilege are narrowly construed.” (Story v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1007.)

However, Evidence Code section 1016 establishes the patient-litigant exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege, stating: “There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the mental or emotional condition of the patient if such issue has been tendered by: … [t]he patient ….” (Evid. Code, § 1016, subd. (a).)

Significantly, in In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415 (Lifschutz), the Supreme Court of California clarified that “the patient-litigant exception of section 1016 of the Evidence Code compels disclosure of only those matters which the patient himself has chosen to reveal by tendering them in litigation.” (Id. at p. 427.) It emphasized that the exception “allows only a limited inquiry into the confidences of the psychotherapist-patient relationship, compelling disclosure of only those matters that are directly relevant to the nature of the specific emotional or mental condition that the patient has voluntarily disclosed and tendered in his pleadings or in answer to discovery inquiries.” (Id. at p. 431.)

Here, Samuel has clearly triggered the patient-litigant exception by stating that he suffered from “serious emotional distress,” including “anguish, fear, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, shame, depression, sadness, loneliness, [and] isolation” as a result of the alleged incident. He further disclosed that he sought evaluation and treatment for the same from Jelloian during the period of “March 2022 through March 2023.” (Thiel Decl. Ex. “A.”)

Nevertheless, applying the principles outlined in Lifschutz, the Court finds that the Subpoena, as it is stated, exceeds the permissible scope of discoverable information under the patient-litigant exception. Specifically, the Subpoena seeks psychotherapy records for a broad time frame – “September 1, 2007 to present” (Thiel Decl. Ex. “B”) – which goes beyond the temporal scope relevant to the mental condition Samuel has placed at issue.

Accordingly, the Court modifies the Subpoena to limit the production of psychotherapy records to the period from March 2022 through March 2023, consistent with the scope of treatment Samuel voluntarily disclosed in his discovery response.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Sierra Canyon, Inc. d/b/a Sierra Canyon School Camp’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Records is GRANTED IN PART.

Third-party witness Adam Jelloian is ordered to produce the records responsive to the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Records dated October 1, 2024, limited to the treatment period from March 2022 through March 2023, within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.