Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV23298, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

This is a discrimination and wrongful termination action. On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff, Emmanuel Akuamoah, filed a Complaint against Defendant, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, alleging causes of action for (1) Retaliation in Violation of CFRA, (2) Violation of Labor Code §§ 233, 234, 246.5, (3) Disability and Associational Disability Discrimination (FEHA), (4) Violation of Labor Code §§ 1102.5-1105, (5) Retaliation (FEHA), (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, and (7) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and/or Retaliation (FEHA).

As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a social worker. During his employment, Plaintiff suffered from symptoms related to COVID which required leave from work, and he took medical leave because of work-related injuries to his Achilles tendon and rotator cuff. Plaintiff’s Achilles tendon injury required accommodation. Further, Plaintiff took medical leave for the birth of his son and again took leave when his son contracted COVID. In retaliation for taking medical leaves due to workplace-incurred injuries and issues regarding his son, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated. As a result, Plaintiff suffered humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety, and emotional distress.

On November 28, 2023, Defendant issued a subpoena to Plaintiff’s primary medical care provider, Kaiser Permanente, demanding production of all medical records for Plaintiff between June 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, and January 1, 2021, to June 30, 2023.

On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash the subpoena. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.

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).)

Plaintiff moves for an order quashing the subpoena on the grounds the request is overbroad and intrudes upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy. In an effort to resolve the issue, Plaintiff proposed that the subpoena be limited to all at-issue medical providers from Kaiser. The resulting list amounts to 12 medical care providers. (See Mot., p. 4.) Plaintiff argues the requests should be limited to his injuries at-issue.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s proposed list because it’s too narrow, excludes relevant communications, and relevant medical information. Defendant further argues the proposed list does not allow Defendant to develop its defenses to Plaintiff’s claims. Those defenses bear upon whether Plaintiff did, in fact, suffer from a medical condition or disability giving rise to a cause of action under the FEHA. Plaintiff alleges workplace injuries for which he took medical leave and filed workers’ compensations claims. The veracity of those workers’ compensation claims is at issue, which in turn bears upon Plaintiff’s credibility.

The court finds the requests should be narrowed to Plaintiff’s at-issue injuries: Achilles tendon, rotator cuff, and mental and emotional health. The subpoena, as written, is overbroad, but Plaintiff’s proposed limitation is too restrictive. Defendant is entitled to investigate the merit of Plaintiff’s injuries while protecting against discovery of irrelevant information and unnecessary intrusion into Plaintiff’s private and irrelevant information.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED. The Subpoena is modified to allow for the production of information relating to Plaintiff’s Achilles tendon, rotator cuff, and mental and emotional health for the time periods identified in the Subpoena.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court