Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV00858, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV00858 Hearing Date: October 11, 2024 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
john
peter gawronski, Plaintiff, v. ralphs
grocery company, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.:
24NNCV00858 Hearing Date: October 11, 2024 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to quash subpoenas for production
of business records; or in the alternative for a protective order, or an
order modifying the deposition subpoenas |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff John Peter Gawronski (“Plaintiff”)
alleges that Defendants Ralphs Grocery Company (“Ralphs”) and Karina Dorado
(“Dorado”) owned, operated, controlled, managed, supervised, and maintained the
premises located at 8325 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Sun Valley, CA 91352. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured due to
the negligent acts or omissions by the agents, representatives, or employees of
Ralphs, including security guard Dorado.
Plaintiff alleges that on May 3, 2022, he
was lawfully on the premises as an invited customer/guest of Defendants. He alleges that while he was at or near the
front entrance of the restroom, he was violently attacked, assaulted, and
robbed of his personal belongings by 3 male individuals, causing serious
injuries and related damages to Plaintiff.
The complaint, filed April 10, 2024,
alleges causes of action for: (1) general negligence; (2) premises liability; (3)
negligent supervision, hiring, or retention; and (4) negligent security.
On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff named Allied
Universal Security Services Universal Protection Service LPP as Doe 1.
B.
Motion
on Calendar
On September 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a
motion to quash Ralphs’ subpoenas for production of business records or, in the
alternative, for a protective order or an order modifying the deposition subpoenas.
On September 30, 2024, Ralphs filed an
opposition brief.
On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a
reply brief.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
moves to quash the deposition subpoenas for production of business records,
including medical and insurance records requested and issued by Ralphs’
counsel, issued on: (1) Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, (2) Jigna Kunmar,
NP, (3) USC Care Ambulatory Practices, (4) United Medical Imaging of Glendale,
(5) Monji Optometry, (6) Yuriy Verpukhovskly, M.D., (7) San Fernando Valley
Advanced Imaging, (8) ENT Surgical Association, (9) Cedars Sinai Medical
Center, (10) Los Angeles County Fire Department, and (11) Medicare Parts A
& B. Plaintiff argues that the
subpoenas are overbroad in scope and subject matter, and they invade his right
of privacy. In the reply brief,
Plaintiff states that he has offered to allow records dating 10 years prior to
the incident be produced, excluding psychological and substance abuse records,
but Ralphs has not accepted this offer. (Reply
at p.2.)
The
deposition subpoenas seek one or more of the following requests:
·
Any and all documents and medical records pertaining to the
examination, care, diagnosis, and treatment of the patient, including but not
limited to all office, emergency room, inpatient charts and records, nurses’
and doctors’ notes, radiological reports, colored photographs or laser colored
copies of photographs, physical therapy and rehabilitation records including
all descriptions of exercises prescribed; any and all records regarding
prescriptions, including the type of medication, date prescription was filled,
doctor who write the prescription, instructions on taking the medication, and
dosage, and any other information available regarding the prescription(s);
sign-in sheets, and documentation which indicate date(s) and times(s) of
patients’ appointment, regardless of date. Hereinafter, “Medical Records
Subpoena.”
·
Any and all itemized statements of charges and billing,
rendered in the course of the care, treatment and examination of the patient,
regardless of treatment dates; including all health insurance information and
claims forms, medical bills, medical billing records, liens, explanation of
benefits statements, correspondence related to billing, records showing
write-offs of amounts billed, and records of payment of insurance carriers,
governmental entities and/or any other person or entity. Hereinafter, “Billing
Records Subpoena.”
·
Any and all original films, including but not limited to
X-Rays, MRI, CT scans and CAT Scans, administer in the examination, care,
diagnosis and treatment of the patient and, film reports, regardless of date.
An exam breakdown of dates and procedures will be needed (WHEN AVAILABLE)
before any duplicates are made; to include duplication cost of digital exams
and or film sheets. Hereinafter, “Film Records Subpoena.”
·
Medical records and billing records about individuals
maintained by or for a covered health care provider, enrollment, payment,
claims adjudication, and case or medical management records systems maintained
by or for a health plan, other records that are used, in whole or in part, by
or for the covered entity to make decisions about individuals. Hereinafter,
“Health Plan Records Subpoena.”
(Mot. at Ex. 1.) Plaintiff argues that he objected to the
subpoenas and attempted to meet and confer with Ralphs, but the parties were
unable to come to an agreement regarding the subpoenas. (Mot., Exs. 2-3.)
Plaintiff
argues that the subpoenas for medical records could potentially seek private records
regarding mental health, substance abuse, HIV, and/or obstetrical/gynecological
records and are, thus, not narrowly tailored.
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.)
For example, in
the Medical
Records Subpoena, Ralphs seeks “any and all” medical and prescription records
and documents pertaining to any visit regardless of date. The Medical Records Subpoena is not limited
in scope as to time or to the relevant injuries suffered by Plaintiff in this
action. Plaintiff requests that the
subpoenas be quashed in their entirety, a protective order be issued, or the
subpoenas be modified to exclude any records relating to Plaintiff’s mental
health or substance abuse records. The Billing Records Subpoena seeks any and all
itemized statements of charges and billing for any care received by
Plaintiff. The Film Records Subpoena
seek all film used to examine, care, diagnose, and treat Plaintiff. The Health Plan Records Subpoena seeks
medical and billing records from covered health care providers maintained by a
health plan. None of the subpoenas are
limited in scope as to time or subject matter with respect to Plaintiff’s
injuries arising out of the subject incident.
In opposition, Ralphs argues that
Plaintiff is 52 years old and alleges that he suffered traumatic brain injuries; concussion; injuries to his jaw, neck, right
shoulder, and wrist; fractured ribs, tailbone, spine, nose, and finger; facial inures;
migraine headaches; restricted breathing tinnitus; post-traumatic stress; loss
of consciousness; vision difficulties; hypereutrophic; presbyopia and
astigmatism; and insomnia. Ralphs argues
that it is necessary to obtain all the records to determine if Plaintiff
experienced pain to his head or body previously, was prescribed medication for
pain before the subject incident, and whether any of the conditions were
preexisting conditions. Ralphs argues
that it has agreed to sign a protective order for the medical records, such
that the documents will not be shared or disclosed to anyone other than Ralphs’
medical experts in the case and to destroy the medical records at the
conclusion of the litigation.
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, film, and health plan records over the 52 years of his
life is unreasonably broad in scope. The
subject incident occurred on May 3, 2022. As
such, the Court will limit the subpoenas in scope of time to 10 years prior to
the injury to the present. Further, as
requested by Plaintiff, the Court will modify the subpoenas to limit the
disclosure of medical records regarding his mental health and substance abuse
to documents generated in the last two years.
The parties are amenable to entering a protective order and will be
ordered to do so prior to production of documents pursuant to the modified
subpoenas. If later in the litigation
and discovery, Ralphs determines that it needs further records regarding
Plaintiff’s health, Ralphs is not foreclosed from seeking such records upon a
showing of good cause. The motion is granted in part and denied in
part on this basis.
Plaintiff seeks
$3,150 in sanctions against Ralphs and its attorney of record. At this time, the Court declines to award
sanctions as the parties were each partially meritorious in their
positions.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff John Peter Gawronski’s
motion to quash the subpoenas issued by Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company is
granted in part and denied in part. The
motion is denied in part to the extent that Plaintiff sought to quash
depositions in their entirety. The
motion is granted in part such that the parties are ordered to enter into a
protective order and lodge the protective order for the Court’s signing. The Court will also modify the deposition
subpoenas for production of documents such that the subpoenas shall be limited
in scope to 10 years prior to the subject incident that occurred on May 3, 2022
to the present and will limit the production of records related to mental
health and substance abuse of Plaintiff to the last two years before the
October 11, 2024 hearing date.
No sanctions will be awarded on this
motion.
Plaintiff
shall
give notice of this order.
DATED: October 11, 2024 ___________________________
John
J. Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court