Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 20STCV38744, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20STCV38744, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38744 Hearing Date: September 20, 2023 Dept: C

Pena v. La Noria Entertainment, et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCV38744

HEARING: 9/20/23 @ 10:30 AM

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Miguel Pena (Plaintiff) moves to quash Defendants La Noria Entertainment, Inc and Total Production Group, Inc.’s (Defendants) subpoenas pursuant to CCP § 1987.1.

Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants and the City of Pico Rivera alleging Battery, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress, and Negligent Hiring for an alleged incident involving a security guard injuring Plaintiff on October 4, 2019. Plaintiff has since added numerous parties by way of Doe Amendments.

Legal Standard

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court,” the court may “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.)

Discussion

Defendants issued three subpoenas to Plaintiff’s primary care physician, Dr. Stephanie Lopez. Plaintiff objected to the subpoenas on the grounds that they were overbroad as to scope and time. Plaintiff argues that they were not limited to the body parts or complaints Plaintiff put at issue in his Complaint and that ten years is unreasonably broad. The subpoenas at issue seek:

· “Documents and medical records and reports, and writings, including, but not limited to, office, emergency room, inpatient, outpatient, hospital charts and records, including electronically stored documents and files, pertaining to the care, treatment, and examination of Miguel Pena….from 10/04/2009 to the present.”

· “Itemized statements of the billing charges, including insurance billing and records, billing records, explanation of benefits (EOBs), billing off-sets, write-offs, and records of payment, amounts paid, and amounts adjusted, pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of Miguel Pena…from 10/04/2009 to the present.”

· “Radiology materials and films, X-rays, MRI’s, and CT scans, pertaining to the care, treatment, and examination of Miguel Pena…from 10/04/2009 to the present. A complete list of breakdown from your film library must be provided prior to production of requested films.”

The subpoenas are overbroad because they seek private medical records for complaints or conditions beyond the limited waiver of Plaintiff’s constitutional privacy rights. There is “an implicit waiver of a party's constitutional rights” concerning “discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff's claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Vinson v. Superior Court(1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.) Thus, Plaintiff waived his privacy rights as to the complaints and condition he put at issue by filing this Complaint. The parties agree that those complaints and conditions are found within Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 6.3. These complaints are as follows:

(a) Plaintiff has continuing headaches, blurry vision, dizziness, decreased hearing acuity, right ear tinnitus, neck pain, insomnia, sadness, concentration, word finding difficulties, and PTSD. (b) all remaining the same. (c) Headaches – varied duration, approximately twice a week; blurry vision – constant, daily; dizziness – occasional, can be triggered by moving head side to side, up or down; decreased hearing acuity, right ear – daily, constant; right ear tinnitus – daily, constant; insomnia – daily, at night; sadness – when discussing the incident; neck pain –daily, constant; concentration and word finding difficulties – daily, constant; PTSD – chronic, frequency and duration inapplicable for this type of condition.”

Defendants are entitled to discovery regarding these complaints. However, Defendants’ subpoenas place no limit on the types of complaints they are seeking, and as such, the requests are overbroad. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the records should be limited to five years prior to the incident. The court agrees. Therefore, Defendants’ subpoenas are quashed and are to be reissued with the limitation as to injuries identified in Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 6.3 within the past five years.

Sanctions

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is procedurally defective because he fails to adequately identify parties in his request. “A party's motion for sanctions must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the rule, and (3) identify the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person against whom sanctions are sought.” (CRC, rule 2.30(c).) Plaintiff states he is seeking sanctions against Defendants, however, there are multiple Defendants. Plaintiff does not list each Defendant he seeks sanctions against in his request. Thus, his request for sanctions is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas is GRANTED. Defendants may reissue the subpoenas with the above limitation. Plaintiff request for sanctions is DENIED.