Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV18945, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18945 Hearing Date: February 22, 2024 Dept: 27
Juan Covarrubias v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.
|
Thursday, February 22, 2024 |
[OPPOSED]
Motion
– Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Quashing Defendant Frank Castaneda Salazar’s
Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical Records
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order
Quashing Defendant Frank Castaneda Salazar’s Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical
Records is GRANTED. The subpoenas are hereby ordered to be limited
in time and scope to ten years and to the left leg and knee.
Background
Factual and Procedural Background
Juan
Covarrubias (Plaintiff) filed suit on August 9, 2023, against Uber
Technologies, Inc. (Uber), Frank Castaneda Salazar (Salazar or Defendant), and
Does 1 through 100 (collectively, Defendants) in a Complaint that alleged a
single cause of negligence for a December 22, 2021 incident. Plaintiff alleges
that in December 2021, he attempted to step out of his vehicle and when he did,
Defendant’s vehicle collided with his vehicle. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff
suffered injuries, specifically to his left knee, for which eventually
underwent arthroplasty.
On
December 19, 2023, Defendant served eight different subpoenas on multiple
medical providers seeking Plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff now files the
Motion before the Court, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Quashing
Defendant Frank Castaneda Salazar’s Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical Records
(the Motion). Defendant opposes the Motion, and Plaintiff files a reply.
Preliminary Issues
Request for Judicial Notice and Objection to
the Request for Judicial Notice
Concurrently
with his opposition papers, Defendant filed a request for judicial notice of
the Declaration of Lily Nhan which contains two medical articles regarding
osteoarthritis, one from the National Institute of Health and the other from
Johns Hopkins Medicine. Defendant requests that the Court judicially notice
this article under CEC § 452(h). Plaintiff objects to this request arguing that
the authorship and veracity of the articles make them unsuitable for judicial
notice. The Court agrees and judicial notice is denied.
The
articles discuss what osteoarthritis is, its associated symptoms, risk factors,
and treatment plans. The general information provided may very well be subject
to dispute within the medical community. Moreover, its relevance is tenuous.
The extent and severity of Plaintiff’s diagnosis has not been made known to the
Court, only that Plaintiff has been diagnosed. Assumptions based off of the
articles, without expert testimony or medical records would be inappropriate.
The latter of these two is the subject of the instant Motion, to which the
Court now turns.
Discussion
Legal Standard
“If
a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books,
documents, electronically stored information, or other things 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 described in subdivision (b),
or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity
to be heard, 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.” (CCP § 1987.1.)
Analysis
In
the moving papers, Plaintiff argues that the Motion should be granted because Defendant’s
subpoenas are overbroad and contain no time limit. Plaintiff argues that this
is a violation of the right to privacy provided by the California Constitution,
and that although Plaintiff’s physical injury has been put at issue, it does
not permit Defendant to seek “any and all” records from Plaintiff’s medical health
providers. Defendant contends that the reason the subpoenas are broad is
because Plaintiff suffered a traumatic knee injury in 1986. Additionally,
Plaintiff informed Defendant that he was diagnosed with severe osteoarthritis,
a disease that can cause deterioration of the cartilage within the joints. Upon
reply, Plaintiff argues that a prior injury over 35 years ago does not give
Defendant free reign on Plaintiff’s medical records. The Court agrees, grants
the Motion, and orders that the scope of the subpoenas be limited to the past
ten years, and only to Plaintiff’s left leg and knee injury.
a) Defendant makes no showing that Defendant’s
need for discovery outweighs Plaintiff’s right to privacy
“Although
the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless.” (Calcor Space
Facility v. Superior Court, (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 233.) Even
highly relevant, nonprivileged information may be shielded from discovery if
its disclosure would impair a person's “inalienable right of privacy” provided
by the California Constitution.
A
court must balance the need for discovery with the right of privacy. Our state
Supreme Court created a three-step test for just such an occasion. “The party
asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest,
an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances,
and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Williams v. Superior Court
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, citing Hill.) “The party seeking
information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important
countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection
may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective
measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance
these competing considerations.” (Id.)
Here, Plaintiff has established a
legally protected privacy interest in his medical records; this privacy right
is well-documented. (County
of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621, 641. Also see Cal.
Const. art. 1, § 1.) Although Plaintiff has placed his physical health at
issue, Plaintiff has specified that the injury at issue only concerns his left
leg, and more specifically, his left knee. (Motion, 3:10-14.) Considering the
current circumstances, Plaintiff contends that medical record subpoenas
requesting “any and all” medical records concerning Plaintiff’s medical history
is inappropriate. This is objectively reasonable given the specificity of the injury
and that this has already been agreed to by Defense counsel. (Motion, Exh. 4.) Finally,
Plaintiff makes clear that the scope of the eight subpoenas is the threatened intrusion,
as the subpoenas are virtually unlimited in terms of scope and time.
Now, the burden lies with Defendant
to establish legitimate countervailing interests that disclosure of Plaintiff’s
entire medical history would serve. Indeed, the subpoenaing party bears the
burden of establishing a compelling need for discovery and establishing direct
relevance of the information to their case. (Davis v. Super. Ct. (1992)
7 Cal.App. 4th 1008, 1014 and 1017.)
In addressing this burden, Defendant
raises two main contentions: (1) Plaintiff suffered a knee injury in 1986 that
was treated in Guerrero Mexico, and (2) Plaintiff suffers from severe
osteoarthritis. The Court addresses both below.
i.
Plaintiff’s knee injury 35-years ago is not relevant, and any issues
caused by osteoarthritis will appear in medical records from the last ten years
Defendant notes that Plaintiff
suffered a traumatic sports injury to his left knee (a meniscus tear) in 1986.
Further, Defendant states that the injury was followed by arthroscopic surgery
in 1986 because of severe osteoarthritis. (See Plaintiff’s Responses to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 35 and 37.) Defendant continues that if there were any
pain, discomfort, or complications, “any and all” medical records would reveal
this, and that in fact Defendant is entitled to these records because of the
prior injury. However, Defendant is silent on why, if the injury and subsequent
surgery in 1986 was so severe, it would not show in medical records over the
past 10 years.
Instead, Defendant cites to cases
that argue the right to privacy is not absolute. One of these cases is Britt
v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844 (“Britt”); however, that
reliance is misplaced. In Britt, the plaintiffs brought suit seeking
damages for personal injuries caused by the operation of an international
airport facility for jet aircraft. The plaintiff appealed a decision that
compelled him to disclose private associational affiliations and activities,
including his entire lifetime medical history, without regard to its bearing on
litigation. The Britt Court ruled that the order went far beyond what
legitimate litigation interests could justify. (Britt, supra, at 858.)
However, in contending that Britt supports his argument, Defendant cites
a footnote in which the Britt Court notes that, for example, if a
plaintiff places his respiratory health at issue by contending that airport
operations damaged his respiratory system, the defendant would be entitled to
all medical information surrounding plaintiff’s respiratory condition, and not
just airport-related incidents. Defendant misreads Britt’s holding. Britt
stands for the proposition that defendants are entitled to reasonable discovery
for the subject placed at issue, not unlimited discovery. Medical records from
the last ten years will show any and all things relevant. Any further lacks
justification, and Defendant here has failed to persuade this Court to the
contrary.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Quashing Defendant Frank Castaneda Salazar’s
Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical Records is GRANTED. The
subpoenas are hereby ordered to limit their scope to ten years maximum and are
limited only to the left leg and left knee.