Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV26034, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff, Judy Edison, initiated this premises liability action against Defendants, County of Los Angeles and Does 1 through 20, for injuries arising from a trip and fall due to a tree stump near the entrance of the Los Angeles County Department of Social Services in El Monte, California. Plaintiff alleges she sustained mental, emotional, and physical pain and suffering, including fractures to her left shoulder and right foot. On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to name CBRE Group, Inc. (“CBRE”) as Doe 1. CBRE allegedly owned and managed the property where Plaintiff’s injury occurred.

On May 16, 2023, CBRE issued eight deposition subpoenas to Plaintiff’s medical providers[1] seeking documents related to any and all treatments rendered to Plaintiff. There are no limitations on time or scope. Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with CBRE’s counsel to limit the timeframe to the five years prior to the date of the incident and to limit the scope of the records sought to Plaintiff’s left shoulder and right foot. CBRE’s counsel agreed to the timeframe of five years but refused to limit the scope of the records sought.

On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash the deposition subpoenas, or in the alternative, to limit the scope of the subpoenas to Plaintiff’s at-issue body parts. Plaintiff seeks sanctions against CBRE and its counsel of record.

The motion was heard on September 11, 2023. The Court issued a tentative ruling which stated an intent to limit the timeframe of the deposition subpoenas to five years preceding the incident. The Court adopted that portion of the ruling. As to the scope of the subpoenas, CBRE argued Plaintiff had not limited the extent of her injuries to her shoulder and foot. CBRE offered Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses to Nos. 6.2 and 10.1 in support of that argument. However, because CBRE had not included the interrogatories, the Court could not assess whether the scope of the subpoenas was overly broad and burdensome. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and directed CBRE to file the Form Interrogatories with the Court.

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 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 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 Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (a).)

In making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §1987.2.)

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿

The only issue to be decided is whether the subpoenas are overly broad and burdensome in scope.

CBRE argues Plaintiff’s complaint and Form Interrogatory responses show Plaintiff has not limited her claims to her left shoulder and right foot.

Form Interrogatory No. 6.1 asks, “Do you attribute any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 6.2 through 6.7).” (10/5/23 Castellanet Decl., Ex. A, p. 3.) Plaintiff responded, “Yes.” (Opp., Castallanet Decl., Ex. A, Response to No. 6.1.)

Form Interrogatory No. 6.2 states, “Identify each injury you attribute to the INCIDENT and the area of your body affected.” (10/5/23 Castellanet Decl., Ex. A, p. 3.) In response, Plaintiff identified fractures to her left shoulder and right foot. (Opp., Castallanet Decl., Ex. A, Response to No. 6.2.)

Form Interrogatory No. 10.1 asks, in relevant part, “At any time before the INCIDENT did you have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT?” (10/5/23 Castellanet Decl., Ex. A, p. 5.) Plaintiff responded, “No.” (Opp., Castallanet Decl., Ex. A, Response to No. 10.1.)

Form Interrogatory No. 6.1 is not limited to physical injuries. Form Interrogatory No. 6.1 includes mental or emotional injuries as well. Because mental and emotional injuries are at issue, Defendant is entitled to obtain medical records that relate to any mental and emotional injuries going back five years before the events at issue. However, Plaintiff is correct that the subpoenas at issue are overbroad in that they are not limited to left shoulder, right foot, and mental and emotional injuries but go well beyond. Consequently, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against CBRE and its counsel. Given the ambiguity between the allegations of the Complaint and Plaintiff’s discovery responses, the Court finds CBRE had substantial justification to oppose the motion. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is denied.

The alternative motion for a protective order is granted. The Court modifies the subpoenas accordingly: (1) the timeframe is limited to five years prior to the incident and (2) the scope is limited to Plaintiff’s left shoulder, right foot, and mental and emotional injuries.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

[1] The medical providers include Clovis Community Medical Center; Clovis Community Medical Ctr. (Billing Department); Clovis Community Medical Center, Clovis; Carbon Health Urgent Care La Habra; Focus Medical Imaging; San Gabriel Valley Medical Center; San Gabriel Valley Medical Center (Films); AHMC, ATTN: Billing.