Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from a car accident.  Defendant Onalie Eleanor Johanna Marcott was driving her 2018 Kia Optima, with Plaintiff Victoria Robertson as a passenger, when it collided with non-party Paul Rafferty’s 2019 Volkswagen Golf.  Plaintiff claims Defendant was driving negligently and recklessly.  The operative complaint alleges two claims for motor vehicle and general negligence. 

On September 7, 2023, Defendant served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (Subpoena) to the custodian of records of Premiere Chiropractic & Sports Medicine (“Deponent”).  The Subpoena asked the Deponent to produce the following: 

 

“Any and all medical records, doctors’ reports, notes, memoranda, correspondence, videotapes, audio tapes, results of all tests, nurse’s notes, physical therapy notes, progress notes, surgical notes, surgical videotapes, sign in sheets, patient information sheets and arthrograms pertaining to Victoria Robertson, including diagnosis as to condition and prognosis for recover and any other information to the treatment of said individual.  Include: ANY AND ALL X-RAYS, MRI’S, CT SCANS, RADIOLOGY FILMS, RADIOLOGY REPORTS & BILLING RECORDS.  THIS REQUEST INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO ALL RECORDS STORED ELECTRONICALLY OR DIGITALLY SUCH AS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER HARD DRIVES, ZIP DISKS, CD ROMS, FLOPPY DISKS, TAPE DRIVES AND ANY OTHER DIGILGAL MEDIA. 

***INCLUDE RECORDS FROM PREMIER SPORTS MEDICINE MEDICAL GROUP FOR DATES OF 08/01/2013 TO PRESENT.” 

(Ex. A to Foster Decl.)   

The Subpoena requested production of records to be served at Knox Legal Service (“Knox”) by September 28, 2023.  (Id.)  Deponent did not produce the requested documents and did not serve any objections.  (Foster Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9.)  Plaintiff did not move to quash the Subpoena.  (Id. ¶10.)  Knox contacted Deponent, which twice indicated it would produce the records.  (Id. ¶¶13, 17.)  To date, however, Deponent has not produced the records.  (Id. ¶¶14, 18.)   

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to enforce the deposition subpoena and for sanctions in the amount of $1,085.  Defendant argues the records are relevant to Plaintiff’s damages claim.  Plaintiff has identified Deponent as a healthcare provider from whom she has sought treatment for injuries she alleges in this case.  (Id. ¶20.)  And Deponent has not stated any good cause for refusing to comply with the Subpoena.  No opposition was filed. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Where the witness whose deposition is sought is not a party, a subpoena must be served to compel his or her production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010, subd. (b).) A deposition subpoena may command only the production of business records for copying without attendance at deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020, subd. (b).) The subpoena need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for production of the records. (Code. Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (c).) The Discovery Act does not define “business records,” but the term includes every kind of record maintained by every kind of business, governmental entity, profession, or occupation. (Evid. Code, §§ 1270, 1560, subd. (a).)¿¿ 

Personal service of a deposition subpoena obligates any resident of California to appear, testify, and produce whatever documents or things are specified in the subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).) If a non-party disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the non-party to comply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).) A non-party opposing such motion without justification is subject to sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.2, sudd. (a), 2020.030, 2025.480.)¿¿ 

ANALYSIS 

The Court first considers whether Defendant’s motion is timely.  Section 2025.480(a) provides that a motion to compel shall be made no later than 60 days after “completion of the record of the deposition.”  With respect to a Deposition Subpoena for Business Records, the¿objections served in response to business records subpoenas constitutes a record of a deposition.  (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader¿(2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 136.)¿ Here, Deponent did not serve any objections, and accordingly, the 60 day period has not yet run, and Defendant’s motion to compel is timely.   

The Court next considers the merits of the motion.  The Court concludes the discovery sought is relevant to Plaintiff’s damages claim, as Plaintiff has identified Deponent as a  healthcare provider from whom she sought treatment for injuries she is alleging in this case.  Plaintiff has not moved to quash the subpoena on privacy grounds, and in fact, any right to privacy is waived as plaintiff has put her treatment at issue in the case.  (San Francisco v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227, 232 (a plaintiff’s right to medical privacy is waived “[w]hen the patient himself discloses those ailments bringing an action in which they are in issue”).)  Further, Deponent has not stated any good cause to resist production.  Indeed, it made no objections to the Subpoena.   

The Court next considers Defendant’s request for sanctions.  Section 2025.480 provides that the court “shall impose a monetary sanctions …. against any party, person or attorney who unsucessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”   Deponent did not oppose this motion.  Thus, Section 2025.480 does not support the requested sections and the request is denied.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel compliance with subpoena and DENIES the request for sanctions.  

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 15, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court