Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV01689, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 15, 2024

Case Name: Doe v. LAUSD, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV27056

Matter: Motions to Quash Subpoena (4x)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jane Doe

Responding Party: Defendant LAUSD

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions are granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed the operative Complaint against Defendants LAUSD and Does 1-60 for (1) childhood sexual abuse, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), (3) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, (4) failure to report suspected child abuse, (5) negligent supervision of a minor, and (6) negligence.  Plaintiff alleges that when she was a minor attending middle school she was repeatedly sexually abused and molested by her educator and coach, Doe 1.  

Plaintiff now seeks to quash four subpoenas issued to her medical providers, (a) MLK Community Hospital, MLK Community Medical Group, MLK Outpatient, (b) West Central Family Medical Center, (c) Augustus Hawkins, and (d) Exodus Recovery.  Plaintiff argues that “(1) the information sought is privileged and invasive of plaintiff’s constitutional right of privacy; (2) the information sought is not directly relevant and essential to the subject matter of this action; (3) the subpoenas are overbroad in scope; and (4) the subpoenas are in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220 because they seek plaintiff’s sexual history with third persons.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 authorizes courts to quash a subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon the court’s own terms and conditions, including protective orders. In addition, the court may take other appropriate means to protect parties or nonparties “from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).)  Discovery devices are meant to facilitate litigation, not wage it.  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221.)

The subpoenas at issue seek: “Any and all documents and MEDICAL RECORDS relating to MENTAL HEALTH, PSYCHIATRIC and PSYCHOLOGIC RECORDS and any and all dates of service pertaining to the examination, care, diagnosis, and treatment of the patient, including but not limited to all office, emergency room, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, raw test data, test items, response/answer sheets, test manuals, user guides, scoring templates, scoring keys, scoring programs and other test protocols, nurses' notes, radiological reports, photographs, therapy and rehabilitation records including all descriptions of exercises prescribed; any and all records regarding prescriptions, including the type of medication, date prescription was filled, doctor who wrote the prescription, instructions on taking the medication, and dosage; and any other information available regarding the prescription(s); sign-in sheets, and documentation which indicate date(s) and time(s) of patients' appointment; regardless of date, color photographs, black and white photographs, intraoperative photographs, any and all surgical photographs, CD and/or DVD files, INCLUDING ALL PATIENT IN-TAKE FORM(S) AND ENTRY-REGISTRATION FORM(S) AND QUESTIONNAIRE FORM(S) AND LETTER(S) OF PROTECTION, AND ANY AND ALL ATTORNEY CORRESPONDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF.  Any and all mental health records from January 2001 to the present.”  Defendant also seeks billing records.  

While Plaintiff does claim severe emotional distress as a result of the subject abuse, the Court finds that the subpoenas are far overbroad in light of Plaintiff’s privacy interests to the extent they seek all of her psychological records from 2001 until the present.  This is particularly true to the extent that Plaintiff responded in discovery that she did not receive counseling for the abuse at issue.

Thus, the Motions to Quash are granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.