Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV24697, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24697    Hearing Date: July 17, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 7/17/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV24697 TIFFANY BANK vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles 

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA IS GRANTED IN PART;

REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED

Background

On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present slip and fall case against Defendants, including Defendant City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she tripped over an uneven sidewalk located near 670 S. Dunsmuir Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90036. In response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.2, which asks Plaintiff to identify each injury Plaintiff attributes to the subject incident and the area of her body affected, Plaintiff stated: "back pain, ankle pain, knee pain, body soreness, increased anxiety, insomnia, and depression." On May 30, 2024, Defendant served eight subpoenas for Plaintiff’s insurance and medical records. Plaintiff alleges that none of the aforementioned subpoenas are limited in time or scope, as they seek “any and all” records related to Plaintiff from each of the entities. Specifically:

1.  Kaiser Permanente (Medical Records): “[a]ny and all non-privileged physical and digital medical records including but not limited to both private and industrial records, doctors notes, treatment and evaluation records, nurses notes, inpatient and outpatient records, correspondence, lab results, diagnostic test results and all medical and radiology reports. To Include any and all Exchange of Liens and Correspondence in addition to Meds, Bills, X-Rays, Insurance, etc.”

2.  Kaiser Permanente (Billing Records): “[a]ny and all non-privileged physical and digital itemized billing records. To include any and all Exchange of Liens and Correspondences in addition to Meds, Bills, X-Rays, Insurance, etc.”

3.  Kaiser Permanente (Radiology Records): “[a]ny and all non-privileged physical and digital X-rays, MRI’s and CT scans and reports. To include any and all Exchange of Liens and Correspondences in addition to Meds, Bills, X-Rays, Insurance, etc.”

4.  SimonMed Imaging (Medical Records): “[a]ny and all non-privileged physical and digital medical records including but not limited to both private and industrial records, doctors notes, treatment and evaluation records, nurses notes, inpatient and outpatient records, correspondence, lab results, diagnostic test results and all medical and radiology reports. To Include any and all Exchange of Liens and Correspondences in addition to Meds, Bills, X-Rays, Insurance, etc.”

5.  SimonMed Imaging (Billing Records): “[a]ny and all non-privileged physical and digital itemized billing records. To include any and all Exchange of Liens and Correspondences in addition to Meds, Bills, X-Rays, Insurance, etc.”

6.  SimonMed Imaging (Radiology Records): “[a]ny and all non-privileged physical and digital X-rays, MRI’s and CT scans and reports. To include any and all Exchange of Liens and Correspondences in addition to Meds, Bills, X-Rays, Insurance, etc.”

7.  Southern California Sports Rehabilitation (Medical, Billing, Radiology Records): “[a]ny and all non-privileged physical and digital MEDICAL and ITEMIZED BILLING records including but not limited to both private and industrial records, doctors notes, nurses notes, inpatient and outpatient records, correspondence, lab results, diagnostic test results and all medical and radiology reports. To include and and all actual X-RAY FILMS, CT & MRI SCANS on CD ONLY. To Include any and all Exchange of Liens and Correspondences in addition to Meds, Bills, X-Rays, Insurance, etc.”

8.  Westside Pain Specialists (Medical, Billing, Radiology Records): “[a]ny and all nonprivileged physical and digital MEDICAL and ITEMIZED BILLING records including but not limited to both private and industrial records, doctors notes, nurses notes, inpatient and outpatient records, correspondence, lab results, diagnostic test results and all medical and radiology reports. To include and and all actual X-RAY FILMS, CT & MRI SCANS on CD ONLY. To Include any and all Exchange of Liens and Correspondences in addition to Meds, Bills, X-Rays, Insurance, etc.”

Plaintiff now moves the Court to limit the subpoenas for medical and radiology records to treatments of only those body parts and medical conditions that Plaintiff put at issue and from ten (10) years prior to the date of the subject incident to the present. Plaintiff also requests that the subpoenas for billing records be limited to include only records from the date of the subject incident to the present.

Legal Standard

CCP section 1987.1 states that “[i]f 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).)  “In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (Id.)  Subdivision (b) provides that a party may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a).  (Id., § 1987.1(b).) 

 As a general rule, 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.) When the information sought to be discovered impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play for that person. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover both a person’s personal and financial matters. (Id.) The court must balance competing rights — the right of a litigant to discover relevant facts and the right of an individual to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Id.) 

A motion to quash a subpoena for personal records, including medical records, must be accompanied by a declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of the dispute” between the party requesting the records and the “consumer” or “employee” whose records are involved or counsel for such person.  (C.C.P. §§1985.3(g), 1985.6(f)(4).)   The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. 

Scope of the Subpoena

        In Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, the California Supreme Court found that the following should be considered by the trial court in balancing the interests between the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts and the right of bank customers to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their financial affairs: “. . . the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the parties and on the trial, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and ability of the court to make an alternative order which may grant partial disclosure, disclosure in another form, or disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the information undertakes certain specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances.” (Id. at 658.)  

        Although relevance is typically construed liberally (see Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169), the standard is more stringent when a party is attempting to discover documents which are constitutionally protected by the right to privacy:   

 [E]ven when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy.  . . . [I]f an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective . . . [meaning] the least intrusive means to satisfy the interest. Mere convenience of means or cost will not satisfy that test for that would make expediency and not the compelling interest the overriding value.  (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855 [internal quotes and citations omitted].) 

 This is true even where the party asserting the right to privacy is the party who brought the suit.  (See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 [“While the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such waiver must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits . . . . [A]n implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.”].)  The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.  (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.)  

Discussion

In balancing Defendant’s interest in having access to relevant documents to formulate its defense against Plaintiff’s privacy interests in protecting her medical and financial privacy, the Court finds "direct relevance" to mean documents, either financial or medical, that relate to treatments of the body parts and conditions at issue. In this case, these are treatments for Plaintiff’s back, ankle, and knee, as well as conditions such as body soreness, increased anxiety, insomnia, and depression. Defendant, in the opposition, does not allege that there are additional body parts at issue.

The Court does not find unfettered access to all of Plaintiff’s medical history to be directly relevant and, in cases such as this one, typically limits access to both billing and medical documents to a period of 10 years from the date of the incident to the present. The court finds 10 years to provide a good balance between protecting Plaintiff’s privacy interest while still providing Defendant with ample information to prepare its defense.

The Court finds billing records relating to the treatment to be directly relevant to assess the nature and quality of treatment that Plaintiff has received related to the body parts at issue, the progress of any condition affecting the specified body parts, and to identify any unusual increases in medical expenses post-incident. These records are relevant for determining the legitimacy and extent of Plaintiff’s claimed damages.

Thus, the Court grants the present motion in part and limits the subpoenas as follows: Medical and billing records are limited to treatments for back pain, ankle pain, knee pain, body soreness, anxiety, insomnia, and depression from ten (10) years prior to the date of the subject incident to the present.

The Court declines to issue sanctions under the circumstances, as it granted Plaintiff’s motion only in part. Additionally, there is a legitimate dispute regarding the scope of the subpoenas, and the Court finds that both parties have acted with substantial justification.

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.