Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV22898, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22898    Hearing Date: January 9, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motions to quash are DENIED.

On 7/15/2022, Plaintiff Ruth Sandoval (Plaintiff) filed suit against Adriana’s Insurance Services, alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (6) violation of California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (7) declaratory judgment; (8) wrongful termination; (9) denial of and discrimination based upon the use of sick leave; (10) failure to pay wages; (11) failure to pay minimum wages; (12) failure to pay overtime compensation; (13) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (14) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (15) waiting time penalties; and (16) unfair competition.

Now, Plaintiff moves to quash four medical records subpoenas. For ease, the Court has consolidated its analysis into a single ruling.

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to quash the Medical Records Subpoenas issued to: (1) the custodian of records for Comprehensive Orthopedic Care Center; (2) the custodian of records for Clinica Humanitaria; (3) the custodian of records for PIH Health—Good Samaritan Hospital; and (4) the custodian of records for Greg S. Khounganian, M.D.

The subject Subpoenas request:

1.      The complete contents of any and all files of [deposition witness] . . . pertaining to a patient named Ruth Sandoval . . . including but not limited to any and all medical records, counseling or therapy records, psychiatric records, reports, prescriptions, evaluations, diagnoses, prognoses, raw data of all tests, notes, bills, and other documents pertaining to consultations with or to the care, counseling diagnoses, and treatment of [Ruth Sandoval] from 2017 to present.

2.      The complete contents of any and all files received by [deposition witness] . . . pertaining to a patient named Ruth Sandoval . . . including but not limited to any and all medical records, counseling or therapy records, psychiatric records, reports, prescriptions, evaluations, diagnoses, prognoses, raw data of all tests, notes, bills, and other documents pertaining to consultations with or to the care, counseling diagnoses, and treatment of [Ruth Sandoval] from 2017 to present.

3.      Any and all documents that discuss, mention or comment upon any emotional distress suffered by [Ruth Sandoval] from 2017 to present.

4.      Any and all documents that discuss, mention or comment upon any lawsuits filed by SANDOVAL against any entity or person from 2017 to present.

5.      Any and all documents that discuss, mention or comment upon any connection between Adriana's Insurance Services, Inc. or AGI Business Group, Inc. and [Ruth Sandoval] from 2017 to present.

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are overbroad and confusing given that none of the providers treated Plaintiff for emotional injuries. Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff’s disabilities and injuries are not at issue in this action.

The Court disagrees.  

As for Requests Nos. 1-2, Plaintiff started employment at AIS in January 2018, so the request is reasonably limited to begin one year prior to Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff’s medical records are directly relevant to this lawsuit, as Plaintiff alleges a series of physical and emotional injuries, seeks damages pertaining to those injuries, and claims that even if some injuries are not caused by Defendants, they are the foundation for which the discrimination claims are premised on. Plaintiff identified in her own discovery responses that the Subpoenaed Parties are in possession of relevant records. As an example, Plaintiff produced a single page of a medical note from Tri-County Medical Group containing work restrictions that Defendants allegedly did not accommodate, yet, failed to produce the rest of the records from Tri-County Medical Group. Defendants are entitled to these records to assess whether Plaintiff needed accommodations at all, and, to evaluate Plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions, other stressors, injuries, or pain that may have contributed to the alleged physical or mental conditions and any claimed damages.

Request Nos. 3-5 seek all records that discuss or mention Plaintiff’s emotional distress, and any comments regarding this lawsuit and Defendants. While Plaintiff states that she was not treated for emotional distress by the Subpoenaed Parties, any discussion or comment about emotional distress is still relevant, given that emotional distress appears to be at the center of her damages claim. If there is nothing responsive in the records, no records will be produced.

In sum, Plaintiff identified the Subpoenaed Parties in her own discovery responses as possessing records which are relevant to this lawsuit because they reflect treatment for injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of the acts or omissions of Defendants. As part of her responses, Plaintiff identified injuries which were not caused by Defendants as still relevant because they provided the foundation of her claims. (Wang Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B, No. 204.2.)  As such, Defendant has established a compelling need for this discovery, which overcomes the privacy interest in these records. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1853.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to quash are denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motions to compel further are MOOT. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

On 7/15/2022, Plaintiff Ruth Sandoval (Plaintiff) filed suit against Adriana’s Insurance Services, alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (6) violation of California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (7) declaratory judgment; (8) wrongful termination; (9) denial of and discrimination based upon the use of sick leave; (10) failure to pay wages; (11) failure to pay minimum wages; (12) failure to pay overtime compensation; (13) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (14) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (15) waiting time penalties; and (16) unfair competition.

Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to discovery. 

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to her Form Interrogatories-Employment (Set One) and Form Interrogatories-General (Set One).

In opposition, Defendant clarified that it has already provided outstanding responses. As such, the substance of Plaintiff’s motions are moot.

The Court is also persuaded that Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the subject motions. (Wang Dec., ¶ 9.) On August 30, 2023, this Court ordered the Parties to further meet and confer and attend an IDC if necessary. (Id., ¶ 10.) On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff submitted an IDC request. (Id., ¶ 11)  On September 27, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the IDC request and ordering AIS to provide code-compliant responses to FROG No. 17 and EFROG 209.2. (Id.) On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel forwarded the Court’s September 27, 2023 Order to AIS’ counsel, and demanded a response within two days, by September 29, 2023. (Wang Dec., ¶ 13.)

On November 16, 2023, AIS provided full, complete, and code-compliant responses. (Wang Dec., ¶ 19.) On December 22, 2023, AIS reached out to Plaintiff asking if Plaintiff would be willing to take the MTCs off calendar since the issues are not moot, but Plaintiff did not agree to do so. (Wang Dec., ¶ 20.)

Given that Defendant provided outstanding responses nearly two months before the hearing, and that it never represented any intention not to comply with this Court’s 7/27/2023 order, the Court finds substantial justification for Defendant’s conduct. The Court also finds Plaintiff’s two-day demand to provide outstanding responses to be unreasonable. However, given that Defendant did not initially provide timely responses, the Court also declines to award Defendant sanctions.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to compel further are moot. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.