Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

July 27, 2022

21STCV29944

Motion to Quash Defendant’s Overbroad Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Kaiser Records and Request for Sanctions in the amount of $2,060.00

The motion is granted. 

The subpoenas to Kaiser are modified as follows: Plaintiff’s (1) head/brain, (2) cervical neck/spine, and (3) left shoulder and limited in time from five years preceding the incident to the present.

Sanctions in the amount of $2,060 are imposed jointly and severally on Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record. These sanctions are payable within 20 days after the date of this order.  

Moving party is ordered to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order. 

 

On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff Audrey Sneberg (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Alexander Brown (hereinafter, “Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence and general negligence following a motor vehicular collision that took place on August 21, 2019 on interstate 405 southbound, approximately 500 feet south of Constitution Avenue. (Compl., p. 4). On said date, Plaintiff alleges that while traveling in the number 1 lane on the I-405, Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle, the impact of which caused a multi-vehicle collision of at least four vehicles. (Id. at p. 5).

On December 9, 2021, Defendant issued nineteen subpoenas for records to Plaintiff’s medical providers. The subpoenas request release of any and all medical records of Plaintiff regardless of date. 

Also in December 2021, Defendant issued six subpoenas to five insurance companies.

On March 7, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion, in part, to Quash Defendant’s oppressive subpoena requests. 

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Quash Defendant’s overbroad subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Kaiser Records. 

Defendant has not filed an opposition to this motion. 

Trial is set for February 10, 2023.

Plaintiff moves the Court to quash two deposition subpoenas for production of business records issued by Defendant to Kaiser Permanente on the grounds that that the subpoenas are overbroad in time and scope and seek private records that are wholly irrelevant to the present matter, in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory rights to privacy. (Motion to Quash, p. i-ii). Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,060.00 for costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in preparing this instant motion. 

The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “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 orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (a).) 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s subpoenas to Kaiser Permanente collectively seeking unlimited medical and medical-billing records of Plaintiff for the ten years preceding the incident through the present are overbroad and violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy. (Motion to Quash, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p. 1, Lines 6-10). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defense counsel refused to engage in any meet and confer discussions “whatsoever,” making informal resolution impossible and necessitating this motion. (Id. at Lines 11-12).

On March 7, 2022, this Court ruled that the issuance of “any and all” styled medical records subpoenas by Defendant was inappropriately overbroad and issued an order limiting such subpoenas to Plaintiff’s injured body parts for a five-year timeframe. (Id. at Lines 13-18).

Additionally, this Court also ordered that “going forward. . . it is ordered that the parties shall have at least two meet and confer sessions in person or over video conference of at least 30 minutes in length prior to filing any motions relating to discovery in this case.” (Minute Order, 03/07/22, p. 2).

Based on the foregoing and in light of the fact that Defendant did not file any opposition papers refuting Plaintiff’s allegations, it appears that Defendant defied this Court’s order by refusing to engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to Plaintiff’s filing of this instant motion.  Plaintiff sent an objection and meet and confer letter to Defendant on May 18, 2022, and a follow-up email on May 24, 2022 (Decl. of Hennessey, ¶9). The only documented reply from Defense counsel was a statement of unavailability to meet the week of May 25, 2022 or the following week, without a suggestion of an alternative date. (Id.  at ¶10). On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel again contacted Defendant’s counsel to meet and confer, but did not receive a response. (Id.  at ¶11).

With respect to the substance of this motion, Defendant’s request for all of Plaintiff’s medical records from the past 10-years are not directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim or defense. “Speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant is not sufficient to meet Defendant’s burden of showing that the records sought are “directly relevant” to an issue tendered by Plaintiff.” (See Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1017). 

Because Defendant’s subpoenas request records that are not directly relevant to Plaintiff’s injuries, the request infringes on Plaintiff’s fundamental right to privacy. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas.  

Accordingly, the Court orders the subpoenas be limited to Plaintiff’s (1) head/brain, (2) cervical neck/spine, and (3) left shoulder and limited in time from five years preceding the incident through the present.

Section 2023.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states “if a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction...” California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 authorizes the awarding of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred or expended in making a motion to quash a subpoena “if the court finds the motion was...opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” Additionally, California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides for discretionary sanctions: “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (emphasis added.)

Here, the Court finds that Defendant has not complied with the Court’s instruction to engage in two meet and confer efforts with regard to discovery disputes. Additionally, Defendant’s failure to narrow the scope of subpoenas issued after the Court issued a ruling on March 7, 2022 quashing subpoenas for “any and all” medical records is a misuse of the discovery process. The Court further finds that the subpoenas were oppressive under these circumstances as well. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record in the amount of $2,060.00 is granted. 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $2,060.00 based on five hours of attorney time billed at $400 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00 (Mot., Decl. of Hennessey, ¶13-14). The Court finds the amount requested to be reasonable and the request is thus granted in the amount of $2,060.00.