Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: BC713616, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC713616    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Bull v. Davodi, D.D.S., Case No. BC713616
Hearing Date August 16, 2022
Defendants Davodi’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena

In this dental malpractice action, plaintiff served a deposition subpoena on the Dental Board of California requesting “[a]ll Dental Board investigation files regarding dental care rendered by ARIA DAVODI, D.D.S. to SARAH BULL and any other persons[.]” The subpoena stated “[a]ll identifying information of persons other than Sarah Bull shall be redacted to protect such persons’ privacy.” Defendants move to quash, arguing violation of Davodi and third-parties’ privacy rights, overbreadth and lack of notice to third parties.

The California Constitution protects the right to privacy. Cal. Constitution Art. 1 §1. A litigant seeking to obtain third-party information protected by this right must show a compelling need for the information that outweighs the third party’s privacy interest. Coito v. Superior Court (1978) 29 Cal.3d 844, 859. A party seeking to compel production of records from a nonparty must articulate specific facts justifying discovery and cannot rely on generalities. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2017.010. Government agencies are not required to disclose personal information of investigated or disciplined health care professionals in light of failure to provide notice to affected persons. Bd. of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2011) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011.

Davodi argues the subpoena is overbroad, seeking records related to treatment of “any other person” over ten years, with no narrowing to incidents similar to Bull’s allegations. Additionally, Davodi argues that producing third-party medical information is a violation of privacy and HIPAA. Finally, citing Bd. of Registered Nursing, Davodi argues lack of notice to third parties.

Bull argues the subpoena is moot as withdrawn, but states counsel intends to file an additional identical subpoena. As Bull intends to file an identical subpoena, and to not waste judicial resources, the court will issue this tentative on the record herein.

Bull argues the information sought could show Davodi’s alleged malpractice was “part of a pattern of assaults and batteries upon patients and/or a pattern of performing major procedures without patient consent[.]” Opp. at pg. 3. Even if such information might be inadmissible character evidence, it could lead to the production of admissible evidence or be admissible under Cal. Evidence Code §1101 to show intent, absence of mistake or lack of accident.

However, the subpoena is overbroad, requesting documents from an impermissibly long time period without limitation to factually similar claims. This, combined with third-party privacy interests and lack of notice to those third parties make the subpoena improper.