Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21STCV13946, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13946    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: C

PATTERSON v. COLLEGE HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.

CASE NO.:  21STCV13946

HEARING:  3/14/23 @ 9:30 AM

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Defendants CHLB, LLC and College Health Enterprises, LLC’s motion for order directing compliance with subpoena, or in the alternative, compelling Plaintiff to execute authorization [re: University of California Irvine Medical Center] is GRANTED in part.

II.            Defendants CHLB, LLC and College Health Enterprises, LLC’s motion for order directing compliance with subpoena, or in the alternative, compelling Plaintiff to execute authorization [re: County of Orange Health Care Agency/Behavioral Health Services] is GRANTED in part.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendants CHLB, LLC and College Health Enterprises, LLC move for an order directing compliance with subpoena pursuant to CCP § 2025.450.

The court notes that CCP § 2025.450 is the incorrect statute, and governs party deponents.  The statute compelling a third party to respond to a deposition notice is CCP § 2017.010.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any
party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any
motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to
any other party to the action.”  (CCP § 2017.010.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on April 23, 2020, Plaintiff was admitted to College Medical Center following a WIC § 5150 hold.  Plaintiff was unconscious.  When Plaintiff woke up the next day, April 24, 2020, he was disoriented and repeatedly asked two orderlies where he was.  Plaintiff alleges the two orderlies shoved Plaintiff, and repeatedly punched Plaintiff’s face and body.  Plaintiff has a history of manic depression.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 12-13.)  Plaintiff alleges significant mental suffering and emotional distress because of the abuse.  (Complaint, ¶ 26.) 

Defendant seeks Plaintiff’s medical/psychiatric/psychological records from third parties County of Orange Health Care Agency (“OCHCA”) and University of California Irvine Medical Center (“UCI”) from 2015 to the present.  Plaintiff has declined to sign a medical authorization.  In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the subpoenas are overboard in time and scope.

The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a compelling state interest.  Inquiry into one’s private affairs will not be constitutionally justified simply because the inadmissible and irrelevant matter sought might lead to other relevant evidence.  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.) Even 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. If an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the “least intrusive means” to satisfy the interest. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855.)

The subpoenas seek information that is directly relevant to the injuries that Plaintiff is complaining about. Plaintiff has alleged significant mental suffering and emotional distress.  Thus, Plaintiff has placed his medical / psychiatric / psychological history and physical condition at issue. Since the injury occurred on April 24, 2020, the court finds that the subpoenas are overbroad in temporal scope.  To ensure the least intrusive means, the court will narrow the scope of the subpoenas to two years prior to the injury.  Counsel for Defendants may only provide copies of the records, or share information contained therein, to persons acting on their behalf during the course of this litigation. 

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED in part.  The subpoenas are narrowed to any and all of Plaintiff’s medical, psychiatric, and psychological records from 2018 to the present.  University of California Irvine Medical Center and County of Orange Health Care Agency/Behavioral Health Services are ordered to comply with the subpoenas within 10 days of receipt of this order. 

Given the limited nature of Defendants’ discovery request, Plaintiff’s request for a discovery referee is DENIED.