Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01500, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 23BBCV01500    Hearing Date: March 14, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

Background

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff John Lafayette Draper (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on February 14, 2022, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendants Joseph Vincent Padua, Montserrat L. Padua, and Laura J. Holguin.  Plaintiff alleges that Joseph Vincent Padua was the driver of Defendants’ vehicle and that he failed to yield the right-of-way while turning left from a HomeGoods plaza driveway near the intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Studio City Place. 

The complaint, filed July 5, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash subpoenas.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to quash subpoenas for production of business records served on Innovative Pain and SpineCenter, ProHealth Advanced Imaging/Medical, Acclara/Billing, ProHealth Advanced Imaging/Radiology, ProMed Spine, and Okhovat Neurological Center.  Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas violate his right of privacy in his medical, pharmaceutical, psychological, psychiatric, and/or psychotherapy records. 

The subpoenas seek any and all documents pertaining to the care, treatment, and examination of Plaintiff; all radiology records; billing and payment records; and all communications with Plaintiff from February 14, 2012 to the present.  (See Mot., Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff objected to the subpoenas.  (Mot., Ex. 2.)

While a plaintiff is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific physical, mental, or emotional injury, “they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit.”  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864; City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227, 232.)  A plaintiff suing for personal injuries waives the physician-patient privilege to some extent, but this does not make discoverable all of a plaintiff’s lifetime medical history.  (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 863-64.)    

While some of Plaintiff’s prior medical history may be relevant to this action to determine if Plaintiff had suffered from preexisting conditions or had issues or pain in certain body parts prior to the subject incident, discovery of the entirety of his medical, billing, radiology records without limitation as to scope or the body parts that are alleged to be at issue in this action is overbroad.  The Court will accept the limitation of 10 years prior to the subject incident to the present, but will modify the medical, billing, and radiology records sought to records regarding Plaintiff’s back and legs.  (Mot. at p.7; Gharabighi Decl., ¶6.)  If the production of these records lead to the discovery of additional good cause, the Court will consider ordering the production of additional records.   

As such, the subpoenas will be modified and restricted in scope and time such as to seek those medical and billing information described in the subpoenas relevant to injuries or issues with Plaintiff’s back and legs for the period of February 12, 2012 (10 years prior to the accident) to the present. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff John Lafayette Draper’s motion to quash Defendants’ subpoenas for production of business records is granted such that the subpoenas issued on Innovative Pain and SpineCenter, ProHealth Advanced Imaging/Medical, Acclara/Billing, ProHealth Advanced Imaging/Radiology, ProMed Spine, and Okhovat Neurological Center shall be limited in scope to Plaintiff’s back and legs for the period of February 12, 2012 (10 years prior to the accident) to the present.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: March 14, 2025                                                       ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court