Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV18963, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV18963, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18963 Hearing Date: May 31, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR MEDICAL RECORDS

Hearing Date: 5/31/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV18963 ADRIAN MENDOZA CRUZ vs. JEFFREY EPPERSON

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendants

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR MEDICAL RECORDS IS GRANTED.

Defendants propounded deposition subpoenas for production of business records on Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation providers. The subpoenas requested “any and all” medical records. Plaintiff served objections to the subpoenas, and the parties met and conferred in an attempt to resolve their issues. They were unable to do so, and this motion to quash followed.

The parties dispute whether there has been sufficient meet and confer prior to filing the motion. Although meeting and conferring is preferred, it is not required for a motion to quash a subpoena. Under CCP §§ 1987.1, 1985.6(f)(4), meeting and conferring is required only for a motion to compel, not for a motion to quash.

For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790).

By filing a personal injury action, plaintiff placed in issue his past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon. All medical and/or psychological records relating to the claimed injuries are thus discoverable. (Evidence Code §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862–864.) Normally, information about medical conditions entirely different from the injury sued upon is beyond the scope of discovery.

The instant case is not one where Plaintiff is alleging chronic pain disorder effecting all parts of his body, or where his injuries are so numerous that limiting production by body part would be virtually impossible. Defendant has, therefore, not shown “good cause” for production of medical records unrelated to Plaintiff’s bilateral knee, low back and lower extremities injuries. Although Plaintiff tendered a demand for policy limits, which contains a statement that he complained to his doctor about cervical spine pain and neck pain a month after the incident, if Plaintiff, through verified discovery responses, is not claiming injuries to the cervical spine or neck, then Plaintiff has not placed these body parts at issue.

The motion to quash is GRANTED. The subpoenas are to be limited to medical records relating to the bilateral knee, low back injuries, and lower extremities only. The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning mutually agreeable language for modified subpoenas before they are propounded. If the parties are unable to agree on the language for the subpoenas, they are ordered to schedule an informal discovery conference to resolve any remaining issues.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.