Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV44242 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena to Custodian of Records for San Mateo Medical Center and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendant Gothic Landscaping, Inc.

The parties are to appear at the hearing.

If the Moving Party has proof of service as noted below, it should be filed as soon as possible prior to the hearing.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in November 2018. Plaintiff Gustavo Gonzalez Soto filed his Complaint against Defendant Gothic Landscaping, Inc. on November 18, 2020.

Defendant filed the instant motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena on September 21, 2022.

Defendants seek an order compelling the Custodian of Records for San Mateo Medical Center to comply with the deposition subpoena served on July 8, 2021. Defendant also seeks sanctions.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f 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.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a) states, in relevant part, “. . . in making an order pursuant to motion made . . . under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification . . . .”

Defendant seeks to compel San Mateo Medical Center (“SMMC”) to comply with its deposition subpoena which he served in 2021. Defendant argues that it issued the subpoena to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims of bodily injury, which include headache, blurred vision, confusion, emotional injuries, and pain in his back, shoulders, right arm, hands, and right wrists.

Defendant’s subpoena sought Plaintiff’s medical and radiology records from January 2008 to present, including but not limited to:

“all reports, notes, sign-in sheets, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, ambulance records, emergency room and lab reports, x-ray reports, pathology reports, bills, payments, insurance records, prescription and pharmacy records, and any other records pertaining to only Maria Jaqueline Rayo Becerra, AKA Maria Rayo, AKA Maria Rayo Becerra, AKA Maria J. Rayo Becerra, AKA Maria Jaqueline Rayo’s head, brain, blurred vision, eyes, neck, mid back, low back, both shoulders, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, both hands, right hand fingers, pelvis, both hips, both legs, right knee and headaches from 2008 until present. DOB: September 22, 1983; SSN: Unknown.”

(Motion, Exh. C.) Defendant’s counsel testifies that she issued the subpoena on July 8, 2021 with a response date of August 3, 2021. (Brenner Decl., ¶6.) SMMC’s Custodian of Records then refused to release the records without a signed authorization from Plaintiff. (Id., ¶7.) Counsel requested that Plaintiff sign the release and Plaintiff refused to do so. (Id.) On August 24, 2022, Counsel again requested that SMMC comply with the subpoena, explaining that it was obligated to comply because Plaintiff did not move to quash the subpoena within the statutory deadline. (Id., ¶8.) As of the filing of this motion, SMMC has not complied with the subpoena or responded to Counsel’s letter. (Id., ¶9.)

Defendant is entitled to access to Plaintiff’s medical records because Plaintiff placed his medical condition at issue by seeking damages for bodily injury as a result of the subject collision. The subpoena is properly limited in time and to the body parts Plaintiff alleged were injured. Plaintiff has not filed objections and has not moved for a protective order or to quash the subpoena. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted.

With respect to sanctions, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a) provides a court may award sanctions if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification. Here, sanctions are denied because this motion was not opposed.

However, Defendant’s proof of service shows that this motion was only served on Plaintiff. Defendant’s counsel stated that she would serve this motion on SMMC’s Custodian of records and file proof of service. (Brenner Decl., p.4.) However, no proof of service was attached.

Defendant’s motion to compel SMMC to comply with its deposition subpoena is CONTINUED until Defendant provides proof of service as to SMMC.

Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.