Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCP00400, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCP00400 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: C
Susan Fernandez vs Allstate Northbrook
Indemnity Company
Case No. 23NWCP00400
Hearing Date: 12/19/23 at 10:30 a.m.
#9
Tentative Ruling
Moving Party to Give Notice.
Background
This case arises from a March 31, 2022 car accident between
Petitioner Susan Fernandez (“Petitioner”) and Jozef Magyar resulting in
Petitioner’s physical injuries. Petitioner
submitted a policy limit demand to Jozef Magyar’s insurance carrier, Respondent
Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Allstate”), which was promptly tendered
in the amount of $25,0000.00. Due to the
severity of the injuries and corresponding medical bills, Petitioner submitted
an underinsured motorist claim to Allstate for her remaining UIM policy limits.
Motion to Quash
C.C.P.
§1987.1(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “If a subpoena requires the
attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically
stored information, or other things… at the taking of a deposition, the court,
upon motion reasonably made by [a party]…, 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. 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.”
Discussion
Allstate provided a response on June 14, 2023, which
prompted Petitioner to demand arbitration. On September 26, 2023, Petitioner’s
Counsel received nineteen (19) subpoenas directed to the following medical
providers:
·
Release of information, medical, billing, and
radiology records from Providence Saint Joseph Hospital of Orange;
·
Billing Records from Providence Health and
Services;
·
Radiology Records from Providence Saint Jospeh
Hospital of Orange;
·
Medical Records from Saint Jude Heritage
Medical Group;
·
Billing Records from Saint Jude Heritage
Medical Group;
·
Legal Records from Saint Jude Heritage Medical
Group;
·
Radiology Records from Saint Jude Heritage
Medical Group.
Petitioner argues that the subpoenas are overbroad because
none of them are limited in time or scope.
They seek “any and all” records related to Petitioner, which would
include records from birth to the present.
Because the subpoenas are not limited to certain body parts, the
requested records would include OBGYN, oncology, and mental health records,
which are not the subject Petitioner’s underinsured motorist claim. (Subpoenas
for Susan Fernandez’s Records, Ex. 1.)
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 provides
that “[a]ny consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces
tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum
is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum.”
California has routinely found that a person’s medical file
is an area of privacy due the sensitivity of information held within the file.
(See Heda v. Superior Court (1998) 225 Cal. App. 3d 525, 529.) A
plaintiff who has filed a lawsuit has not completely waived their right to
privacy by bringing suit; rather, the implicit waiver of a party’s
constitutional right to privacy “encompasses only 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, 841-842.)
Respondent is required to make an actual showing that the
information is directly relevant and must demonstrate that the need for such
information is compelling. Here, Allstate’s
subpoenas are overbroad and do not reasonably identify the documents it seeks. Nor does Allstate describe with particularity
the necessity of the requested documents.
However, Petitioner does put her physical condition into
question due to the claim of injuries. It follows that Respondent should be granted
reasonable access to records that may assist in determining the injuries
sustained. Therefore, the subpoena requests are limited to only those body
parts and medical conditions put at issue in this case. In response to Allstate’s initial discovery, Petitioner
listed the conditions related to the accident as her lower back, neck, right
knee, bilateral shoulders, and bilateral hips at issue. (Plaintiff’s Response
to Form Interrogatory No. 6.2.) Therefore, Allstate may seek medical records
related to the aforementioned areas. The
Court also limits the time period that Allstate may seek records to no more
than five (5) years preceding the March 31, 2022 incident.
Accordingly, Petitioner Susan Fernandez’s Motion to Quash
Subpoena for Petitioner’s Medical Records is GRANTED in part as set forth
above.