Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV20279, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: September 18, 2024

Case Name: Ortiz v. Miller, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV36241

Matter: Motions to Quash Subpoena (3x)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Candida Ortiz

Responding Party: Defendants Catherine and Craig Miller

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. 

This is a wage and hour dispute.

Defendants Catherine and Craig Miller issued three business record subpoenas to Plaintiff Candida Rosa’s physicians.  The subpoenas seek: “DOCUMENTS shall mean all forms of writings or other items as set forth in Section 250 of the California Evidence Code, and shall include, but not be limited to, records, files, reports, correspondence, intake forms, patient information forms, medical testing and test results, medication records, medical records, therapy records, workers’ compensation records, disability insurance records, clinical evaluations, clinical evaluation reports, physical capacities reports, work status reports, sign-in sheets, patient information sheets, notes (handwritten and typewritten), transcriptions, prescriptions, appointment records, telephone messages, calendars, and electronic media relating to any care, treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, consultation, and/or findings. DOCUMENTS relating to any medical services rendered to Candida Rosa Ortiz (DOB:06/09/1955, SSN: Unknown), from January 1, 2018 to present”

Defendants contend the records are relevant to “the number of hours that Plaintiff worked (or could not work) and will also demonstrate her physical limitations that directly impacted the tasks she could and could not perform and correspondingly the volume of tasks she was required to perform during the relevant time period.”

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 Court finds the subpoenas to infringe on Plaintiff’s privacy rights.  This is a wage and hour dispute.  The documents are not sufficiently relevant. 

The Motions are granted.  The Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving parties 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.