Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV17725, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17725    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I. INTRODUCTION

            This is a personal injury case arising out of an automobile collision on May 13, 2019 between two plaintiffs Michael Burdette and Marlen Garibay (collectively plaintiffs) and Gilberto Plascencia Mora (defendant). Both plaintiffs sustained physical injuries from the collision.

            Defendant then served four subpoenas requesting a wide range of records, specifically “Any and all medical records” regardless of date, for each plaintiff (See Motion to Quash Garibay, Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4)[1]. Plaintiff Garibay filed the present Motion to Quash. Defendant filed his Opposition on January 20, 2023.

            No Reply has been filed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A deposition subpoena may request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony, as well as the production of business records.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)  The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.  In addition, the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . .”  (Code of Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (a))

When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowered by the very nature of the action.”  (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 43.)  The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery.  (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.)  There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks damages related to injuries to plaintiff’s neck because of the incident.  The subpoena served on various medical providers are not limited by time or scope, i.e., by date or related to injuries associated the neck.  In their opposition Defendant asserts that had he been called before this motion was filed, he would have modified the subpoenas to be circumscribed by date (10 years) and relevance (associated with the neck). 

But Defendant used a template that requested “any and all medical records, documents, medical reports…” including but not limited to insurance records, adjustments, lab reports, case history, special tests, and a host of other records. (See Motion to Quash Garibay, Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4).

Because the subpoena is overbroad, the Motion to Quash is granted and the subpoenas modified for the reasons below.  Indeed, Defendant concedes that the request could be narrowed in time to the past ten years and narrowed in scope to the injuries related to the neck and lower back.  Therefore, the subpoenas as written cannot go forward. As Heller notes, the privacy and protections normally associated with medical records is lowered when the plaintiff puts their health at issue, however, "Plaintiff is not compelled, as a condition to entering the courtroom, to

discard entirely her mantle of privacy." (Vinson v. Superior Court. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 841-42).          

IV. CONCLUSION

Garibay’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED. The Court finds the subpoenas as worded were not narrowly tailored enough to seek information directly relevant to both the time and categories of records sought.  The subpoenas shall be modified to seek records, billing, and imaging relating only to plaintiff’s neck and back from May 13, 2009, to present.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT7@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. 

Dated this 3rd day of February, 2023