Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV28139, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28139    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 68

Carla Rice vs. County of Los Angeles – Department of Health Services, et al., 21STCV28139

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Production of Records served to Victoria Chan

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Production of Business Records for Downtown Mind Wellness

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles – Department of Health Services

“Here, Plaintiff did not object to the subpoena, did not oppose the Motion to Compel Compliance with the Deposition Subpoena, and has not presented any showing that any communications are not directly related to her claimed damages against the County. Downtown also failed to set forth any showing that there are any communications not directly related to the issues Plaintiff tendered to the Court. To the contrary, Plaintiff made it clear through written discovery and deposition that the records are directly related to her claims against the County. Therefore, Downtown must comply with the deposition subpoena.”  (Reply pg. 4:12-19.)

Background

            Defendant County of Los Angeles – Department of Health Services (Defendant) filed these motions to compel compliance with subpoena for production of records pursuant to CCP § 2025.480. Victoria Chan and Downtown Mind Wellness, who have Plaintiff’s mental health records, said that they would not produce records related to Plaintiff Carla Rice (Plaintiff) because Defendant’s subpoena of their records was not accompanied by a HIPAA-compliant authorization signed by Plaintiff.

            (As noted in the quotation above, the patient has not objected to the production.)

            Defendant argues that the Court should enforce the subpoenas because Plaintiff put her mental health at issue in this case. Plaintiff has alleged damages for emotional distress, as well as depression, anxiety, pain, nausea, and headaches. Defendant argues that because Plaintiff put these things at issue, then Defendant’s need to prepare its defense outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy interests. Plaintiff also alleges a cause of action under FEHA. In order to prove claims under FEHA, Defendant argues that Plaintiff must show that she suffered from a disability at the time of her requests for accommodations.

Opposing Parties’ Position

            Victoria Chan and Downtown Mind Wellness argue in their combined opposition that they have an obligation to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege whenever third parties seek access to confidential communications. They argue that Defendant is only entitled to a limited inquiry into psychotherapy records that are directly relevant to the specific claims that Plaintiff made at issue in her lawsuit. They argue that the Court’s order should be limited to the disclosure of psychotherapy records that reflect Plaintiff’s treatment for pain, anxiety, and depression. They also argue that the order should require them to include a general description of psychotherapy records that are not disclosed.

            (But the healthcare providers are not in a position to enlighten the Court as to why they believe that the requested materials are not within the proper scope of discovery based on the claims that the Plaintiff makes.  And the patient chose not to claim that the requested materials are not germane and properly discoverable in this action.)

Reply

            Defendant argues in its reply that case law supports the production of all of Plaintiff’s mental health records because she has put her mental health at issue in this case. Defendant argues that even Plaintiff’s prior mental health records are relevant because Plaintiff is claiming that Defendant exacerbated Plaintiff’s pre-existing PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Defendant also points out that Plaintiff has not objected to the subpoena of the records and has not presented any showing that the records are not directly related to the issues in the case. Defendant requests that the Court compel Chan and Downtown to comply with the subpoenas and produce all of Plaintiff’s records from 2018 to the present date.

Analysis

            CCP § 2025.480 allows a subpoenaing party to seek a court order compelling compliance with a deposition subpoena when a non-party refuses to comply with the subpoena. Evidence Code § 1016 provides that there is no privilege concerning the issue of the mental or emotional condition of a patient if such issue as been tendered by the patient.

            The California Supreme Court has held that “the patient, in raising the issue of a specific ailment or condition in litigation, in effect dispenses with the confidentiality of that ailment and may no longer justifiably seek protection from the humiliation of its exposure.” (In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 433.) However, disclosure can be compelled only for the specific mental conditions that the Plaintiff has disclosed. (Id. at 435.)

            Plaintiff has put her mental and emotional condition at issue in this lawsuit. Specifically, she has put her pain, PTSD, anxiety, and depression at issue. Any records that Chan and Downtown have related to those conditions from 2018 onwards must be produced. Any records for conditions beyond these need not be produced, but Chan and Downtown should provide a description of the records they do not produce.

Order

1.      Defendant County of Los Angeles’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoenas is GRANTED in its entirety.

2.      Victoria Chan and Downtown Mind Wellness are ordered to comply with Defendant’s subpoena in full.