Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV30311, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants California Medical Pharmacy, Inc. and David Liautaud (“Defendants”)

This action arises out of an employment relationship. The complaint alleges: (1) harassment based on sex/gender/race and national origin in violation of FEHA; (2) discrimination based on sex/gender/race and national origin in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) sexual battery; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) constructive tortious termination in violation of public policy.

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Quash, or in the Alternative Modify, Defendants’ Deposition Subpoena of Records from a Medical Provider and Protective Orders. Defendants filed an opposition on November 18, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a reply on November 25, 2024.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 states, “[w]hen 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, …, upon motion reasonably made by the party, the witness, or any consumer described in Section 1985.3, 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 such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (See Id.) A motion to quash does require a separate statement, unless the party being subpoenaed did not provide any response to the subpoena. (CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(5), (b)(6).)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (CCP § 2017.010.)

“[P]laintiffs¿are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing [a] lawsuit, . . . they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.”¿¿(Britt v. Superior Court¿(1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864¿[citation and footnote omitted].)¿¿However, “. . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial.¿ Thus, courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.”¿ (Vinson v. Superior¿Court¿(1987) 43 Cal.3d 833,¿842.)¿

Plaintiff seeks to quash the deposition subpoena issued to Maria Auxiliadora Medical Group (“MA Medical Group”) on the grounds that “(1) the information sought is invasive of Plaintiff’s constitutional right of privacy and the physician-patient privilege; (2) the information sought is not relevant to the subject matter of this action, and is therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) the subpoenas are overbroad in scope and not narrowly drawn and/or there is a less burdensome alternative to production by subpoena.” (Mot. p. 2:6-10.) Plaintiff also seeks a protective order for any medical documents produced by MA Medical Group.

The subpoena seeks the following information: “Any and all medical records, medical charts, documents, notes, explanation of benefit forms, correspondence, memoranda, or any and all other written documentation including electronically stored information, including emails, concerning any and all medical treatment, laboratory services rendered or prescriptions issued relating to any illness, injuries or sickness relating to any mental, emotional or psychological injury, illness or sickness and relating to any claim of injuries, and any and all medical records, notes, charts, MRI reports, scan reports, (no X-rays) regarding all medical treatment” pertaining to Plaintiff from January 1, 2018 to present. (Nevarez Decl., Ex. 1.)

In Plaintiff’s complaint she alleges both mental injuries and general “medical attention” as a result of Defendant’s alleged actions. (Opp. pp. 7:25-8:1, citing Complaint at ¶¶ 21-22, 30, 32, 40, 42, 47, 49, 56-57, 76, 78.) Plaintiff states that she “has suffered mental anguish and emotional suffering” and also that as a result of the alleged harassment, she “was required to and did seek medical attention, and will need medical attention in the future.” (Complaint, ¶ 20, 22.) Additionally, in response to interrogatories, Plaintiff states she is suffering “depression, anxiety, stress, fear, embarrassment, humiliation, anger, lack of sleep, PTSD, lack of self-esteem, nightmares, weight gain, high blood pressure, and chest pains.” (Opp. p. 8:2-5, citing Response to Form Interrogatory Employment Law Nos. 210.4, 212.2, 212.3.212.4.) While there can be no dispute that Plaintiff has a legally protected privacy interest with respect to her medical records, she may not withhold information that relates to the conditions for which she seeks redress in this lawsuit. Plaintiff has asserted both emotional distress and physical injuries, including weight gain, high blood pressure, and chest pains. Moreover, Defendants have a compelling interest in accessing the medical records pertaining to those injuries, and the scope of discovery is broad. (CCP § 2017.010 [allowing discovery of any matter that is “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”].) As Defendants argue in their opposition, the information sought by the subpoena is necessary to ascertain whether Plaintiff’s claimed mental and physical conditions were caused by Defendant’s alleged harassment.

Plaintiff’s argument that the subpoena should be limited to only psychological and psychiatric records from July 18, 2022 to present is unavailing, because as discussed above Plaintiff has asserted that she has suffered both physical and mental injury. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s medical history prior to the date of the alleged harassment on July 18, 2022, is relevant in determining whether Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the harassment or other factors. Thus, the subpoena is proper.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, or in the Alternative Modify, Defendants’ Deposition Subpoena of Records from a Medical Provider and Protective Orders is DENIED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court