On October 6, 2020, plaintiff John William Edwards II (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Nicole George Hanhan and Evon Hanhan (collectively “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident.   

On October 13, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel non-parties Department of Veteran Affairs (the “VA”), Juan Montes, M.D. (“Montes”), and Medi-Cal/California Department of Health Care Services (“Medi-Cal”) (collectively the “Deponents”) to comply with deposition subpoenas for the production of Plaintiff’s medical records.   

This motion was heard on February 14, 2023.  As noted in the Court’s February 14 minute order, Defendants’ motion to continue trial is now moot, as the parties filed a joint stipulation, and the Court entered an order, continuing trial and all related dates.  Further, the Court continued this motion because Defendants had not submitted proof that this Motion was served on Deponents. 

On February 17, 2023, Defendants filed proof of service.  No opposition by the Deponents has been filed.  While Plaintiff served objections to the subpoenas, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the current motion.   

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.)  A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)  

A service of a deposition subpoena shall be effected a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).)  Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).)  A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.) 

A “written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)   

Notice of this Motion and Motion were properly served by personal service on Deponents and the deposition subpoenas requesting the production of documents were properly served on the custodian of records for each Deponent by personal service.  The deposition subpoenas were properly accompanied by a proof of service of a notice to the consumer.     

Plaintiff served objections to the deposition subpoenas.  Specifically, Plaintiff objected to the Medi-Cal and Montes subpoenas on the grounds that the requested items were vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, oppressive, and an invasion of privacy.  (Mitrovich Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.)  As to the VA subpoenas, Plaintiff objected to the time span of the requests, which seek Plaintiff’s medical documents from October 16, 2003 to present.  Defendants’ counsel stated a willingness to limit the time span of the requests to a ten year period dating from the date of the incident.  Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. 

Defendants show there is good cause to compel the production of the requested documents.  Plaintiff claims injuries were sustained during the incident.  Therefore, Defendants are entitled to know the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, treatments, and prognosis of his treating physicians.  However, Defendants have not shown there is good cause to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records that predate the incident by fifteen years.  

Accordingly, the Motion to compel compliance is GRANTED, but the document requests are MODIFIED as follows: