Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV26993, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV26993, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26993 Hearing Date: February 26, 2024 Dept: 27

Complaint Filed: 8/18/2022

Trial Date: 5/15/2024

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: 2/26/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name: JIMMY LEON HIX and KAREN MARIE HIX vs. MARIO GIOVANY FLORES SANDOVAL, BESTWAY RENT A CAR, WEGO DELIVERS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive

Case No.: 22STCV26993

Motion: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENAS

Moving Party: Plaintiffs JIMMY LEON HIX and KAREN MARIE HIX\

Responding Party: Defendants MARIO GIOVANY FLORES SANDOVAL; WEGO INC. and NOAH ALVAREZ

Notice: Sufficient

Tentative Ruling: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENAS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2022, plaintiffs Jimmy Leon Hix and Karen Marie Hix initiated an auto accident lawsuit against Defendants, alleging that Defendant Mario Sandoval, while employed by WeGo Delivers and Alvy Drivers, collided with their vehicle. On December 20, 2023, the defendant issued eight subpoenas for the plaintiffs’ records from 6 different medical providers, Verizon and a landscaping company. The parties reached an agreement on the scope of subpoenas for Verizon and the landscaping company. Additionally, there was consensus on the body parts to be covered by the six medical subpoenas. However, the parties disagreed on the relevant time frame: the plaintiffs proposed limiting the subpoenas to records from 10 years before the incident, whereas the defendant seeks records for a 20-year period.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires . . . the production of . . . documents . . . before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms and conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

The court can make an order quashing or modifying a subpoena as necessary to protect a person from “unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).)

1. Meet and Confer

Although a meet-and-confer declaration is not mandated for a motion to quash a subpoena per Code of Civil Procedure, § 1987.1, the court appreciate the parties' efforts to meet and confer to narrow down the issues for consideration. Based on the parties' correspondence, there is consensus on the scope of the subpoenas for both Verizon and Mega Gardening. Similarly, for the six medical providers, there is agreement regarding the subpoenas' scope concerning the body parts involved. The only remaining issue for the court's decision is the time frame for the subpoenas. The Plaintiff advocates for the subpoenas to cover the period from 2010 to the present, reflecting the 10 years prior to the incident, while the Defendant proposes a span from 2000 to the present, extending back 20 years prior to the incident. (Declaration of Dana H. Furman (Furman Decl.) ¶ 3; Exhibit 1 to Furman Decl.)

2. Time span of the medical subpoenas

Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.) However, it is well-settled that individuals have a protected privacy interest in their medical records. (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 41.) Although a party may waive the right to privacy by putting medical history at issue, that party does not waive the right to privacy for unrelated medical conditions. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844 849.) Furthermore, even if part of a medical condition is at issue, it does not follow that a plaintiff waived the privilege as to otherwise protected aspects of his medical history during his lifetime. (Hale v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1424.) Generally, a period of 5 to 10 years is deemed reasonable for medical conditions at issue. However, if the party seeking the constitutionally protected records can establish that the information sought is directly relevant to the claims (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387), the court will consider extending that time frame.

Plaintiffs' proposal to limit the six remaining medical subpoenas to 10 years prior to the incident, from 2010 to the present, aligns with standard practices and is reasonable. However, the Defendant has submitted medical records indicating that Plaintiff experienced pain or injury to the lower back/lumbar area, including recommendations for surgery from one treating doctor since 2007. (Furman Decl.) ¶ 5; Exhibit 3 to Furman Decl.) Thus, the court will allow access to medical files relating to Plaintiff’s lower back from 2007 to present.

CONCLUSION

While the parties have reached an agreement on aspects of the subpoena other than the timing for the six medical subpoenas, the court orders that documents related to the neck, upper back/spine, middle back/spine, arms, legs, and pain management be limited for the period from 2010 to the present. However, for the lower back or lumbar area, disclosure is to be extended from 2007 to the present.