Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV39343, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39343    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 68

Abbas Sizar vs. Mott MacDonald Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.  21STCV39343

(1)  Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Medical Records to Kaiser Foundation Hospital/SCPMG (Psych Dept.) and

(2)  Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Medical Records to Kaiser Permanente (Billing Dept.)

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of an employment dispute.  Plaintiff is claiming that he suffered stress, anxiety, and depression arising from the Defendant’s alleged employment harassment, retaliation, and discrimination of him.

            Defendant issued two subpoenas to Kaiser which are at issue in this motion.  Because the parties have already indicated that Defendant is willing to limit the subpoenas, the Court shall not address the arguments that relate to the subpoenas as drafted.

            Based on the meet and confer process, the Defendant has indicated that it shall limit the subpoenas to:

Kaiser Foundation Hospital/SCPMG (Psych. Dept.) for the period from January 1, 2018, to present which relate to “stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Kaiser Permanente medical billing records for the period from January 1, 2018, to present which relate to “stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff never obtained psychiatric or psychological or related mental health services from Kaiser, and thus there are no such records. (Billing Dept. Reply at pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff claims that the only treatment he received from Kaiser was cardiology treatment, the records of which Defendant already subpoenaed. (Billing Dept. Reply at p. 4.) However, Plaintiff has indicated that he is willing to compromise and allow the subpoena of some records from Kaiser. (Psych Dept. Reply at p. 5; Billing Dept. Reply at pp. 5-6.)  Plaintiff asked that the parties enter into a “first look” agreement as it had already done with regard to other health records of Plaintiff.

ANALYSIS

Motions to Quash Medical Records Related to Kaiser Foundation (Psych Dept.) and Medical Records Related Kaiser Permanente (Billing Dept.)           

The scope of discovery is broad, and Defendant has a right to discovery of relevant information. Certain information is not discoverable due to privacy concerns, absent a showing that a plaintiff put that information at issue through their pleadings.

            Plaintiff has put his mental state at issue by alleging that he suffered stress, anxiety, and depression. Therefore discovery into that is appropriate.  The assertion that Plaintiff did not seek such care at Kaiser is not a complete answer that cuts of the right to Defendant to seek such records.  Indeed, the Court is somewhat perplexed regarding this matter as it seems odd that Plaintiff would oppose subpoenas that seek records that are claimed do not exist.  If that is the case, then there is no reason to assert all the privacy concerns.  So too, the Plaintiff admits to having received some treatment at Kaiser during that relevant period.  If those records reflect treatment at the psychiatric/psychology department, then the effort is justified.

            Plaintiff indicated in his replies that he proposed that the scope of the subpoenas be limited to January 1, 2018, to present and Plaintiff would have a first look opportunity with any documents that are produced. (Psych Dept. Reply at p. 5; Billing Dept. Reply at pp. 5-6.)

            It appears that the parties were one centimeter apart.  The only disagreement appears to be whether the parties shall have a “first look agreement” similar to that which they have already employed with regard to other health records sought in this case.  The Court desires argument on this issue.

            Should the Court order the subpoenas modified to be limited to:

Kaiser Foundation Hospital/SCPMG (Psych. Dept.) for the period from January 1, 2018, to present which relate to “stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Kaiser Permanente medical billing records for the period from January 1, 2018, to present which relate to “stress, anxiety, and depression.”

AND be subject to a “first look” agreement similar to that already employed by the parties.

Or should the Court not require a “first look” agreement allowing Plaintiff that opportunity?