Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV04736, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV04736    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION TO QUASH

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Enriko Zeinalvand (Plaintiff) brings this action against Steven Betrisey (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges he was injured in a motor vehicle incident in which Defendant’s car struck his own.

Before the Court is motion by Plaintiff to quash three deposition subpoenas issued to his insurance providers Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) and Intact Insurance Group, LLC (Intact). The subpoenas seek the following:

1.      All investigative reports, claims records, medical records, color photographs, repair estimates and correspondence regarding a February 17, 2023 accident on the 101 freeway in Glendale. Policy Number: 000999457875; Claim Number: 0703786509.

2.      All investigative reports, claims records, medical records, color photographs, repair estimates and correspondence regarding a May 15, 2022 accident on Glenoaks Boulevard, in Glendale. Policy Number: 000999457875; Claim Number: 0673015400.

3.      All investigative reports, claims records, medical records, color photographs, repair estimates and correspondence regarding a June 26, 2023 accident. Policy Number: 2160026000003; Claim Number: 0AB403190.

Plaintiff moves to quash each of these subpoenas on grounds that they are impermissibly violative of his privacy rights. Defendant opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary.  C.C.P. 1987.1 states, “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.  In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  

II.                 MERITS

Discussion

As grounds for moving to quash the three subpoenas, Plaintiff’s notice of motion states that the subpoenas are for privileged insurance claims files and that the privilege attached to such filed is “well known and unambiguous” Despite this assertion, Plaintiff’s memorandum does not highlight any statutory or case law which establishes that insurance claims files are subject to any absolute privilege. Instead, the memorandum argues that the motion should be granted because the subpoenas are (1) violative of Plaintiff’s privacy and (2) subject to the attorney work product privilege. For reasons set forth below, the Court finds these argument unpersuasive.

Insurance Code

The Court begins by addressing Plaintiff’s assertion that insurance claims files are subject to a well-known and unambiguous privilege, but fails to provide a citation to any “unambiguous privilege.” Insurance Code § 791.13 does prohibit the disclosure of claims files by an insurer without consent of the claimant, but contains many exceptions which render the section unhelpful to Plaintiff in quashing the subpoenas. 

Insurance Code § 791.13 provides, in part, that an insurance institution shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure is with the written authorization of the individual or in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena. (Ins. Code, § 791.13(a), (h); see also Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 321 [discovery of insurance claim files may be conditioned on obtaining the written consent of the persons to whom the files relate].)

However, Insurance Code § 791.13 “…applies to, and restricts, information gathering practices and disclosures of information by insurers. It does not purport to create a privilege against discovery by an insured party who is a party to a lawsuit. Moreover, the provisions of the insurance act yield where disclosure is otherwise permitted or required by law or is in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena.” (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 741.) Therefore, the discoverability of information contained in Plaintiff's insurance files is subject to the same balancing of privacy rights versus broad discovery rights.

Privacy

The party asserting the right of privacy, bears the initial burden of demonstrating (1) a “legally protected privacy interest”; (2) an “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances”; and (3) a “threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) If the asserting party meets this standard, responding party must then show that the requested documents are “directly relevant” to the litigation. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 858-859.) The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552 [internal citations omitted].)

Here, Plaintiff has raised an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in her insurance records. The contents of the claims files sought by Defendant would clearly include personal information which is not the subject of public knowledge and would likely include the production of sensitive medical records submitted in support of the claims. Thus, the burden shifts to Defendant to demonstrate an overriding interest in discovery. For reasons explained below, the Court finds Defendant has not carried this burden.

Defendant argues that it possesses an overriding interest in the discovery of these claim files because those files might reveal some injury from previous traffic accidents. Defendant states that Plaintiff’s discovery responses denied any prior injuries and asserted conflicting information with respect to prior traffic accidents. (See Nguyen Decl., Exh. E [Nos. 11.1 & 17.]; Exh. F] No. 3.]; and Exh. G [No. 24.].) Defendant asserts that they are statutorily entitled to Plaintiff’s medical and insurance records to verify these claims, citing to Evidence Code § 996.

Evidence Code § 996 provides an exception to the Evidence Code’s prohibition on the disclosure of confidential communications between a physician and a patient. (See Evi. Code § 990 et seq.) The code section is entirely unconcerned with the production of insurance claim files. As such, it would appears the exception under that Evidence Code § 996 is inapplicable to support a subpoena issued to an insurance provider, even where the claim files may include medical records.

As previously detailed, disclosure by insurers is governed by Insurance Code § 791.13. Insurance Code § 791.139(g) provides an exception where disclosure is “Otherwise permitted or required by law.” As explained in Irvington-Moore, this provision is generally interpreted to yield to the statutory scheme of the Civil Discovery Act. (Irvington-Moore supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at 739.) In other words, there is no statute, other than the Civil Discovery Act, which entitles Defendants to seek discovery of Plaintiff’s insurance records.

Defendant’s interest in the claim files is premised on their revealing medical information about prior injuries and accidents. While Plaintiff has a privacy interest, the Defendant does not need to take at face value the Plaintiff’s assertion that they have not previously been injured.   With the use of an appropriate protective order the Court believes a more limited SDT may be appropriate, such as any statements concerning demand for compensation for injuries from prior accidents.   If no such demands were made, then presumably it is unlikely there were injuries.   If demands were made, then subsequent discovery requests can be made of Plaintiff.  However, as demanded the request is overbroad.

Even were Defendants arguments appropriate as to insurance claim files, Defendants have made no showing that these claims would produce evidence relevant to this case, other than perhaps issues concerning prior injuries. It is true that by filing a personal injury action, Plaintiff has placed his physical related to the injury sued upon at issue and his medical records are generally discoverable. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862-864.) Evidence concerning prior unrelated medical conditions are discoverable only upon a showing of good cause that the condition is relevant to the issue of proximate causation. (See Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314, 1315.)  The Court can perceive of such a request which is more narrowly tailored subject to a protective order

Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for the breath of the request in the SDT.

Conclusion

The Court finds that the motion to quash the three subpoenas should be GRANTED. Plaintiff maintains a privacy interest in the content of his insurance claims files and Defendant has not demonstrated a sufficient countervailing interest. As the Court reaches its conclusion on privacy grounds, there is no need to engage with the parties’ arguments as to attorney-client privilege.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Enriko Zeinalvand’s Motion to Quash came on regularly for hearing on May 30, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURANCE PROVIDERS ARE HEREBY QUASHED.  

PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.