Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV16997, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16997    Hearing Date: April 30, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On January 30, 2025, Defendant Adam George Griffith issued subpoenas seeking medical and billing records for Plaintiff Ampelia Michel from multiple Kaiser facilities. The subpoenas were directed to the following entities: (1) Kaiser Permanente Central ROI Unit Empire Corporate Plaza/Medical; (2) Kaiser Permanente Central ROI Unit Empire Corporate Plaza/Billing; and (3) Kaiser Permanente/Radiology, with a production date of February 27, 2025.

Billing Records Request:

Any and all paper and digital records of payment and/or discount regarding any medical billing as well as the bills themselves, billing information, including but not limited to procedure, service and diagnosis codes, CPT codes, statements, computer printouts, itemized breakdown of all charges, payments, adjustments/write-offs or balance due, including but not limited to, all charges, credits, payments, adjustments and/or write-offs, and the sources of each, such as EOB’s, Explanation of benefits form and statement of charges rendered, including but not limited to any records or documents that may be stored digitally or electronically from any insurance carrier, reflecting any and all credits and adjustments and write offs to the billing by virtue of any payments and/or contractual agreements/adjustments, including fees for professional services and medicare, medicaid, either in hard copy or electronic and/or faxed pertaining to Ampelia Michel, DOB March 21, 1973, with SS# XXX-XX-7892, from 10/13/2011 to present. Treated at Kaiser Los Angeles Medical Center 1526 N. Edgemont Street, Los Angeles, CA 90027.

Radiology Films Request:

Any and all x-ray films, to include MRI films, CAT scans, myelograms, radiological images, ultrasounds and any other films specific to Ampelia Michel, born on March 21, 1973, with SS# XXX-XX-7892, either in hard copy or electronic and/or faxed, from 10/13/2011 to present. Please provide breakdown of films and/or studies reflecting body parts, dates taken, number of films and/or studies, with associated cost for approval prior to production. Treated at Kaiser Los Angeles Medical Center 1526 N. Edgemont Street, Los Angeles, CA 90027.

Medical Records Request:

Any and all medical documents, paper and digital records pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of Ampelia Michel, born on March 21, 1973, with SS# XXX-XX-7892, including, but not limited to all office, emergency room, inpatient and outpatient charts and records either in hard copy or electronic and/or faxed, from 10/13/2011 to present. Including all electronic communications from and to the patient. Treated at Kaiser Los Angeles Medical Center 1526 N. Edgemont Street, Los Angeles, CA 90027.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court to quash or limit the subpoenas on the grounds that they are not reasonably tailored in scope. The subpoenas seek medical records, imaging, and billing information for all body parts and medical conditions without limitation. They are also overbroad in temporal scope, spanning more than a decade with no connection to the injuries alleged in this action.

However, Plaintiff provides no factual detail about the case, including facts surrounding the incident, what body parts are at issue, or what conditions Plaintiff alleges to have suffered as a result of the incident. The Court was able to examine the complaint and determine that the alleged incident occurred in 2021. The Court finds that a 10-year timeframe prior to the incident is overly broad and limits the deposition subpoena to five years prior to the incident.

As to the body parts and medical conditions at issue, Plaintiff provides no such information, and therefore the Court cannot meaningfully assess whether the subpoenas are overbroad. Plaintiff asserts in the reply that the body parts and conditions have been disclosed in responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, but those responses are not attached to either the moving papers or the reply.

Plaintiff argues that it is Defendant’s burden to show what body parts are at issue and cites to Wood v. Superior Court (Bd. of Medical Quality Assurance) (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1138, but that case involved a petition to enforce a subpoena, not a motion to quash. In that context, the moving party there, the Board, bore the burden of justifying enforcement by showing relevance. Here, Plaintiff is the moving party seeking to quash or limit the subpoena and therefore bears the burden. Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides that a motion to quash must be “reasonably made.” To meet this standard in this context, Plaintiff must present sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to assess the propriety of the subpoena and determine whether its scope should be limited. Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff has failed to identify the body parts or medical conditions at issue or explain how the subpoenas are overbroad in light of the injuries claimed. Without this information, the Court cannot meaningfully tailor the scope of the medical or billing records to specific conditions. It is possible that Plaintiff is alleging a full-body injury, in which all of Plaintiff’s body parts would be relevant.

Accordingly, the motion is granted in part to limit the subpoena to five years prior to the incident through the present. Although Plaintiff failed to specify the body parts or medical conditions at issue, the subpoena appears overbroad on its face. The Court therefore limits the scope of the medical and billing records to the conditions or body parts at issue, whatever those may be. The parties are directed to meet and confer on what body parts or medical conditions are at issue by May 5, 2025.  The motion is continued to May 8, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. to address that issue. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report regarding that issue by May 6, 2025; or, if they agree on that issue, the moving party is to file a statement to that effect by May 6, 2025.

Sanctions are denied.

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’s 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.