Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV21424, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21424    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: C

Alexis L., et al. vs Norwalk/La Mirada Unified School District, et al.

Case No. 22STCV21424

Hearing: 1/25/24 at 10:30am

#6

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Norwalk/La Mirada Unified School District’s Motion to Compel 1) Plaintiff to Sign Authorizations for Release of Records; 2) Plaintiff's Treating Physicians Release of Records; or 3) An Order Excluding Plaintiff from Claiming Mental Distress Damages is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This lawsuit concerns an alleged sexual abuse and harassment of Plaintiff Alexis L. by Defendant Scott Waln, a teacher at Los Alisos Middle School within the school district of Defendant Norwalk/La Mirada Unified School District, during the 2019-2020 school year.

Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to sign authorizations for release of records, Plaintiff’s treating physicians release of records, or an order excluding Plaintiff from claiming mental distress damages.

Analysis

Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to sign an authorization to permit certain medical providers to release Plaintiff’s prior medical records.

Defendant presents no authority in support of the motion to compel Plaintiff to produce medical records. Moreover, the Court finds there is no authority for compelling Plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of her medical records.

In Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 918-919, the plaintiff made an underinsured motorist’s claim. The defendant commenced discovery, which revealed that the plaintiff had been treated for post-concussion symptoms with Kaiser in 2000. The defendant followed up with a subpoena to Kaiser, but Kaiser indicated it would only release the records with a signed authorization from the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to sign an authorization. The defendant ultimately filed an action to commence discovery with the Superior Court. The defendant concurrently filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of the records from Kaiser. The motion was unopposed, and the trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff continued to refuse to sign the authorization, and the trial court ultimately granted a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed, but the sole issue on the appeal was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss the case; the Court of Appeals did not rule on the propriety of the issuance of the order compelling the plaintiff to sign the authorizations.

Notably, to the extent the Court of Appeals did rule on the issue, it was highly skeptical of the method of discovery. In a footnote, it indicated, “The record does not reflect the reason the medical facilities requested plaintiff’s authorization. Perhaps defendant did not comply with the procedures to obtain “personal records” of a “consumer” as required by section 1985.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which case the medical facilities had a sufficient basis to refuse compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (k).) If section 1985.3 had been complied with, the record does not indicate why defendant did not simply move to compel compliance with the subpoena pursuant to section 1987.1, instead of pursuing an unwilling plaintiff for a signed authorization. These matters remain mysteries because of the scant record presented to the trial court.”

Aside from the dicta from the appellate court in Miranda, there is ample California appellate authority holding that the trial court does not have the power to create additional methods of discovery. See, for example, San Diego Unified Port Dist. V. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405 and the cases referenced therein.

Moreover, the Court declines to grant an order excluding Plaintiff from claiming mental distress damages, because Defendant may have subpoenaed the records from the medical providers itself.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.