TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Leo Emanuel and Sarah Emanuel’s Motion for Order for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. to Comply with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records; Request for Sanctions Against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and/or Plaintiff’s Attorney of Record, John Ksajikian of Megeredchian Law, APC, in the Amount of $2,057.50 is DENIED.

Plaintiff Lyndsay Lilly Anne Keys Westbrook’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants Leo Emanuel and Sarah Emanuel to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendants Leo Emanuel and Sarah Emanuel (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order compelling nonparty Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) to comply with a deposition subpoena seeking the following:

Any and all health insurance records, including but not limited to scanned documents and all other documents stored electronically or digitally, insurance policies, insurance records, claims forms, medical records with respect to any injury or illness, medical history, consultations, treatment, patient questionnaires, progress notes, laboratory reports, nurse notes, bills or statements, payment history, hospital records, reports of diagnostic and surgical procedures, any other record of any kind or nature that you have in your possession pertaining to the record subject.

(Mot., Morovati Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B.)

A party may obtain discovery pursuant to a deposition subpoena that commands the production of business records for copying. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2020.010, subd. (a)(1), 2020.410.) If a nonparty disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subds. (a)-(b).) Where the deposition subpoena requires the production of documents, the Court may make an order directing compliance with the subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

First, insofar as Defendants argue that Plaintiff Lyndsay Lilly Anne Keys Westbrook (“Plaintiff”)’s objection to the subpoena is ineffective because only Kaiser could object, and Plaintiff was required to file a motion to quash, there is no legal authority stating that party waives their privacy rights simply because she did not file a motion to quash the deposition subpoena. The Court finds that the subpoena here is overbroad with regard to scope and the period of time for which records are sought, as Defendants have made no attempt to limit the records sought, i.e., under the subpoena as currently worded Kaiser would be required to produce records from birth until the present relating to any injury, and it is easy to conclude this is a violation of Plaintiff’s right to privacy in her medical records.

Further, Plaintiff has only alleged certain types of pain, headaches, fear, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and Defendants apparently contend they are entitled to all medical records, without regard to time or scope. Defendants are not entitled to access to any and all medical records possessed by Kaiser without any limitations as to time and scope. Accordingly, Defendants Leo Emanuel and Sarah Emanuel’s Motion for Order for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. to Comply with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records; Request for Sanctions Against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and/or Plaintiff’s Attorney of Record, John Ksajikian of Megeredchian Law, APC, in the Amount of $2,057.50 is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.300, which relates to bringing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, which is not the motion before the Court here. While Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (j), requires the Court to impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes a motion to compel production, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to identify the motion under which she seeks sanctions renders the imposition of the sanction unjust, such that Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.