Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01835, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01835    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      January 4, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         LINDA PLANINAC, by and through her Successor in Interest, Anthony Planinac v. SUNLAND SNF, LLC; STEPHEN BERGER; CITRUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-250, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01835

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Linda Planinac (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed November 29, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order quashing three subpoenas served by Defendants on (1) Kaiser Foundation/SCPMG – Radiology ROI Unit located in Anaheim California, (2) Kaiser Foundation Hospital/SCPMG ROI located in Rancho Cucamonga, and (3) So. California Permanente Medical Group-Billing.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Linda Planinanc’s claim, by and through her successor-in-interest Anthony Planinac (“Plaintiff”), that she suffered elder abuse. Plaintiff alleges she was a resident of Sunland SNF, LLC (“Sunland”). Plaintiff alleges Sunland failed to provide proper care and supervision causing her to suffer from septic shock. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ improper care caused her to be in poor condition in April of 2023, causing her to require medical care.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendants’ subpoenas served on (1) Kaiser Foundation/SCPMG – Radiology ROI Unit located in Anaheim California, (2) Kaiser Foundation Hospital/SCPMG ROI located in Rancho Cucamonga, and (3) So. California Permanente Medical Group-Billing is GRANTED.

The subpoenas are ordered quashed in their entirety.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. The failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense in any action for liability for improper release of records.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 1985.3, subd. (g).)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, 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.”

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to quash three subpoenas for her medical records on the grounds that the subpoenas seek private and protected information.

            The first subpoena at issue was served on Kaiser Foundation Hospital located at 1011 South East Street Anaheim and stated: “THE RECORDS REQUESTED ARE regardless of date FOR THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF RECORDS: ANY AND ALL FILMS, ORIGINAL X-RAY FILMS, CT SCANS AND MRI FILMS, INCLUDING ANY FILMS/IMAGES THAT MAY BE STORED DIGITALLY AND/OR ELECTRONICALLY RELATING TO LINDA CATHERINE PLANINANC . . ..”

            The second subpoena was served on Kaiser Foundation Hospital located on 4th Street Rancho Cucamonga and stated: “THE RECORDS REQUESTED ARE regardless of date FOR THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF RECORDS: ANY AND ALL MEDICAL RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, MEDICAL REPORTS, INCLUDING DOCTORS’ ENTRIES, NURSING CHARTS, PROGRESS REPORTS, PHYSICAL THERAPY RECORDS, PATHOLOGY REPORTS, X-RAY REPORTS, LAB REPORTS, CASE HISTORY, EMERGENCY ROOM, RECORDS, ADMITTING SHEETS, SPECIAL TESTS, INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT RECORDS, AND ANY SIGN-IN SHEETS, ANY AND ALL PHARMACY/PRESCRIPTION RECORDS, ACTIVITY RX NOTES, INCLUDING PRESCRIPTIONS FILLED AND REFILLED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY RECORDS/DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE STORED DIGITALLY AND/OR ELECTRONICALLY INCLUDING ALL PATIENT ORDERS AND PATIENT RESULTS AND SPECIFICALLY FOR ANY DISCHARGE ORDERS, ALL DETAILED SCREEN SHOTS WITHIN ANY COMPUTER SYSTEM PERTAINING TO THE CARE AND TREATMENT, DIAGNOSIS, PROGNOSIS, CONDITION, DISCHARGE, AFFECTING OR RELATING TO LINDA CATHERINE PLANINAC. . ..”

            The third subpoena was served in So. California Permanente Medical Group-Billing located at 10740 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga and stated: “THE RECORDS REQUESTED ARE regardless of date FOR THE FOLLOWING TYPE OF RECORDS: ANY AND ALL BILLINGS, STATEMENT OF CHARGES, STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS, WRITING, AND DOCUMENTS REFLECTING THE FOLLOWING: ANY AND ALL PAYMENTS MADE OR RECEIVED, ANY AND ALL CREDITS, ADJUSTMENTS, WRITE-OFFS, RECONO0LICATIONS, CONTRACT PRICE PAYMENTS OR REDUCTION, PAYMENT BY ANY HEALTH INSURANCE ENTITY, PERSONAL PAYMENTS BY OR TO SAID PATIENT FROM ANY SOURCE, HMO, PPO, MEDI-CAL, MEDICARE OR CONTRACT PAYMENTS BY ANY ENTITY CONCERNING SAID PATIENT, BILLING LEDGERS, REPORTS AND/OR STATEMENTS OF CHARGES RENDERED AND ANY INSURANCE RECORDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY RECORDS/DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE STORED DIGITALLY AND/OR ELECTRONICALLY THIS REQUEST FOR RECORDS INCLUDES ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE OF PAYMENTS FROM ANY SOURCE REGARDING THE ACCOUNT OF THIS PATIENT TO OR FROM ANY PERSON AND/OR ENTITY, IN REFERENCE TO LINDA CATHERINE PLANINAC . . ..”

            “ ‘California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” [Citation.] Thus, ‘[u]nless otherwise limited’ by a court order, ‘any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... , if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ ” (Ross v. Superior Court of Riverside County (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 667, 679.)

The California Constitution provides Californians with a right to privacy. (Cal. Const., art. 1, section 1.) The California Supreme Court has held that “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (“Williams”), citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) “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.” (Ibid.)

            “The Hill test, conceived in the context of a pleaded cause of action for invasion of privacy, has been applied more broadly, including to circumstances where litigation requires a court to reconcile asserted privacy interests with competing claims for access to third party contact information.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)

            Plaintiff seeks to quash subpoenas seeking records related to her medical records.

            It is “well-settled” that patients “have a right to privacy with respect to information contained in . . . medical records.” (Grafilo v. Wolfsohn (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1034.) “Medical patients’ privacy interest, our Supreme Court has observed, derives from their expectation of privacy in their physician's files, which ‘may include descriptions of symptoms, family history, diagnoses, test results, and other intimate details concerning treatment.’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘The information that may be recorded in a doctor's files is broad[-]ranging. The chronology of ailments and treatment is potentially sensitive. Patients may disclose highly personal details of lifestyle and information concerning sources of stress and anxiety. These are matters of great sensitivity going to the core of the concerns for the privacy of information about an individual.’ ” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621, 640-41.)

            The documents Defendants seek to obtain through the three subpoenas are medical records, and Plaintiff had a legally protected privacy interest. Further, Plaintiff has established an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. “[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 this 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.)

            Lastly, Plaintiff has demonstrated a serious threatened intrusion. Plaintiff’s claims alleged are related to improper care resulting in her poor condition necessitating medical care in April of 2023. However, Defendants’ subpoenas seek medical records “regardless of date” and seek an vast variety of documents with no attempt to limit the discovery of private information to that related to the present case. Defendants’ subpoenas seek Plaintiff’s medical records in violation of her privacy rights. Defendants have failed to respond to the present motion and have also therefore failed to raise legitimate and important countervailing interests supporting disclosure.

            Plaintiff’s motion to quash the three subpoenas as GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendants’ subpoenas served on (1) Kaiser Foundation/SCPMG – Radiology ROI Unit located in Anaheim California, (2) Kaiser Foundation Hospital/SCPMG ROI located in Rancho Cucamonga, and (3) So. California Permanente Medical Group-Billing is GRANTED.

The subpoenas are ordered quashed in their entirety.

NOTE

            The court notes that there are currently 11 discovery motions on the calendar.  At the hearing the court will discuss whether an IDC should be conducted, or a Discovery referee appointed.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer on this question.  Be prepared to update the court on those discussions.

Dated:   January 4, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court