Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV01418, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CHCV01418 Hearing Date: August 16, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept.
F43
Date:
8-16-24
Case
#24CHCV01418, Zayda L. Munoz Menjivar vs. Northridge Hospital, et al.
Trial
Date: N/A
MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENAS
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff Zayda L. Munoz Menjivar
RESPONDING
PARTY: No response has been filed.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff
seeks to quash Defendant’s subpoenas seeking Plaintiff’s medical records from
various entities.
RULING:
Parties are ordered to meet and confer.
SUMMARY
OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS
On Aril 18, 2024, Plaintiff Zayda L. Munoz Menjivar
(Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Dignity Community Care dba
Northridge Hospital Medical Center (Defendant). Plaintiff has alleged
professional negligence against Defendant for allegedly failing to remove all
of the gauze from Plaintiff’s body after she had a C-section. Another hospital,
West Hills Hospital, removed the gauze from Plaintiff’s body.
On
May 22, 2024, Defendant issued seven subpoenas to Complete Care Community
Health Center, CHA Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, and West Hills
Hospital & Medical Center. Defendant is seeking “any and all” of
Plaintiff’s medical, billing, radiology, and insurance records, “regardless of
date.” (Aziz Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 3.)
On
June 3, 2024, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter objecting to
Defendant’s subpoenas. (Aziz Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 4.) Plaintiff proposed that
Defendant could limit its subpoenas so that they only seek records that are
relevant to the C-section surgery which forms the basis for this action. Plaintiff
indicates that Defendant never provided any sort of response to Plaintiff’s
meet and confer letter. (Aziz Decl., ¶ 5.)
After
not receiving any response, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash Defendant’s
subpoenas on June 14, 2024, arguing that they are overbroad because they seek
the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical history regardless of date. Plaintiff also
argues that Defendant’s subpoenas violate her right to privacy, that the
records sought are not directly relevant and essential to the action, that
Defendant cannot show that there are no less intrusive means for obtaining the
information sought, and that Defendant cannot show that the need for production
outweighs Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
No
opposition has been filed by Defendant.
No
substantive meet and confer occurred. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s
letter, despite Plaintiff’s indication that she is willing to compromise on the
information sought by the subpoenas.
Based
on the foregoing, the Court has reviewed the documents related to this motion
and will not decide the motion on the merits at this time. The Court orders the
parties to meet and confer directly, not by email or letter. Additionally, the
parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to
be set by the Court. The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in
dispute, followed by Plaintiff’s arguments, then Defendant’s
arguments.
ORDER
1.
The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.
2.
The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described
above.
3.
The dates for the status report and continued hearings will be set at the
hearing on this motion.
4.
Moving party to provide notice.