Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24BBCV00469, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00469    Hearing Date: November 1, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Christopher Vincent Tate (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on April 3, 2022, he was on Defendants Edward Hal Halmon II, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. dba Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust’s property located at 1301 N. Victory Pl. in Burbank.  He alleges that he slipped and fell as a result of a dangerous condition on Defendants’ property, which consisted of water accumulation in an aisle.  He alleges that he slipped and fell on a liquid surface that came from a floor cleaning device that was not properly mopped. 

The complaint, filed February 27, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) premises liability; and (2) general negligence.

On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice Defendant Edward Hal Halmon II and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust. 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s out-of-state subpoenas for production of business records.

On October 21, 2024, Defendant filed opposition papers.

On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed an untimely reply brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoenas that Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”) issued on: (1) Geico Indemnity Company c/o CT Corporation System; (2) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service; (3) Geico Indemnity Company c/o CT Corporation System; (4) Geico Indemnity Company c/o CT Corporation System; (5) Allstate Insurance Company c/o CT Corporation System; (6) StateFarm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service; (7) The Zurich Services Corporation c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service; (8) Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company c/o CT Corporation System; (9) Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company c/o CT Corporation System; (10) StateFarm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service; (11) American International Group; (12) American International Group; (13) Liberty Mutual Insurance Company c/o CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service; (14) Progressive Group of Insurance Companies; (15) Allstate Insurance Company c/o CT Corporation System; (16) Progressive Group of Insurance Companies; (17) Atlanta Medical Center; (18) Chiropractic Center of Atlanta; (19) South Fulton Emergency Physicians LLC; (20) Orthopedics of Atlanta; (21) Summit Urgent Care; (22) Benchmark Rehab Partners; (23) Henry Family and Sports Chiropractic; (24) Barczyk Chri-New Iberia; (25) Envision Imaging of Acadiana; (26) Family Medicine of Tampa; (27) Summit Urgent Care; and (28) Peachtree Spine and Pain Physicians. 

            Plaintiff argues that on June 21, 2024 and July 30, 2024, defense counsel issued several unlimited deposition subpoenas calling for the production of Plaintiff’s entire medical history, without limitation as to scope of his personal injury claims relevant to this action.  In meet and confer conversations, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the subpoenas should be limited to injuries to his low back, right hand, right wrist, right elbow, left leg, and left knee, which were the body parts that were put at issue as a result of the subject incident.  Plaintiff also argued that the subpoenas sought records from providers located outside of California, making them invalid, and that Defendant should use an out-of-state commission to obtain additional records.  In response, Defendant agreed to limit the subpoenas to 10 years prior to the incident only and agreed to provide an out-of-state commission for records from providers located outside of California only when the subpoenaed providers requested it.

            The subpoenas numbered 1-16 above seek any and all insurance records (including, but not limited to, reports, correspondence, and memoranda) regarding Plaintiff.  There is no limitation as to date or scope.  Defendant has not explained why insurance records without specification as to type of insurance or as to date are relevant to this action.  Thus, the subpoenas issued on the insurance companies will be limited to 5 years prior to the subject incident that occurred on April 3, 2022 to the present and will be limited only to the insurance policies issued. 

            The subpoenas numbered 17 to 28 seek medical records, billing records, and radiology records of Plaintiff from April 1, 2012 (10 years prior the incident) to the present regarding Plaintiff.  Again, this is made without limitation as to the scope of the medical, billing, and radiology records being sought. 

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.  However, the Court will accept the limitation of 10 years prior to the subject incident to the present.  The Court will modify the medical, billing, and radiology records sought to records regarding Plaintiff’s back, right upper extremity, and left lower extremity.   

            Finally, with respect to subpoenas issued on out-of-state providers, Defendant is ordered to comply with the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act.  It is not sufficient for Defendant to comply with the Act only if requested by the subpoenaed party. 

            Plaintiff requests $5,685 in sanctions against Defendant and its attorney of record.  The Court will award Plaintiff sanctions in the total amount of $1,000 on this motion, plus $60 in filing fees. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Vincent Tate’s motion to quash Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s out-of-state subpoenas for production of business records is granted such that the subpoenas issued on insurance companies shall be limited in scope to 5 years prior to the subject incident to the present and shall only require the production of the insurance policies issued; and the subpoenas issued for medical, billing, and radiology records shall be limited to 10 years prior to the subject incident to the present, and be limited in scope to the body parts Plaintiff claims are at issue in this action, which include Plaintiff’s back, right upper extremity, and left lower extremity. To the extent that Defendant seeks to subpoena out-of-state providers, Defendant is ordered to comply with the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, if applicable.

                Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: November 1, 2024                                       ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court