Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV18775, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18775 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Remenchik (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants David Achemian (“David Achemian”), Marianna Achemian (“Marianna Achemian”), Sooren Achemian (“Sooren Achemian”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On September 7, 2022, David Achemian, Marianna Achemian, and Sooren Achemian (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash subpoenas to be heard on February 14, 2024. On January 29, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition. On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 6, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to quash the deposition subpoenas for business records served on City of Glendale—Glendale Fire Department, Glendale Adventist Emergency Physicians, and Health Net of California, or to limit the subpoenas.
Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides:
"(a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.
"(b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights."
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3, subdivision (g), provides in part:
“(g) Any 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 Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. The failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense in any action for liability for improper release of records.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).)
As a general rule, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)
When a party seeks discovery which impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover a person’s personal and financial matters. (Ibid.) The court must balance competing rights — the litigant’s right to discover relevant facts and the individual’s right to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Ibid.)
For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
DISCUSSION
A. Complaint
The complaint alleges that on December 4, 2020, at 2625 Hollister Terrace, Glendale, CA 91206, David Achemian negligently operated a motor vehicle, causing a collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle and injuring Plaintiff. Marianna Achemian and Sooren Achemian allegedly owned the motor vehicle David Achemian was driving and negligently entrusted it to him.
B. Subpoenas
The subpoena issued to the City of Glendale—Glendale Fire Department (“Fire Department”) requested:
“All medical records, doctors' reports, radiology
reports, physical therapy records, notes, memoranda, correspondence, sign-in
sheets, videotapes, audio tapes, results of all tests, including diagnosis as
to condition and prognosis for recovery, and any other information pertaining
to the treatment of the above-named individual. All billing records including,
but not limited to, itemized statements, insurance records, billing
adjustments, write-offs, and payment transactions from all sources pertaining
to the above-named individual.
ANY
AND ALL AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC REPORTS PERTAINING TO JENNIFER LYNN REMENCHIK
FOR
DATES OF: 12/04/2020 TO PRESENT”
The subpoena issued to Health Net of California (“Health Net”) requested:
“Any and all insurance, insurance policy, and
insurance claim records, including medical records, medical billing, radiology
films, and billing and payment notices for reimbursement for any medical
services provided under the health care plan of JENNIFER LYNN REMENCHIK;
MEDI-CAL MEMBER ID# U9389443601 Provide all the explanation of benefits, the
names of the health care providers that were reimbursed, a description of the
services provided, the amounts and dates of the reimbursements, and the
identification of the source of those payments.
FOR
DATES OF: 12/04/2020 TO PRESENT”
Plaintiff has not provided a copy of the attachment to the subpoena issued to Glendale Adventist Emergency Physicians (“Glendale Adventist”) listing the materials requested.
C. Plaintiff’s motion to quash
Plaintiff argues the subpoenas violate her right to privacy, seek records unrelated to her injuries, conditions, and body parts at issue in this case, violate the physician-patient privilege and/or psychotherapist-patient privilege, are overbroad in scope and time, violate the collateral source rule, and fail to comply with the timing and notice requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.410 and 1985.3, subdivision (b). (Motion pp. 2-3.)
Plaintiff does not explain how the subpoenas allegedly violate the physician-patient privilege and/or psychotherapist-patient privilege, the collateral source rule, or the timing and notice requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.410 and 1985.3, subdivision (b). Therefore, the Court does not address these issues and deems them waived.
The remaining issues center on Plaintiff’s argument that the subpoenas violate Plaintiff’s privacy rights because they seek information that is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Although Plaintiff argues the subpoenas are overbroad in time, the subpoenas issued to Fire Department and Health Net are limited to December 4, 2020 (the date of the alleged accident) to the present. Based on the parties' arguments, it appears that the subpoena issued to Glendale Adventist contains the same limitation. The time frame is appropriate.
“ ‘[W]hile the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such “waiver” must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits by the fear of exposure of their private associational affiliations and activities.’ [Citation.] Therefore, . . . an implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights 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, 842; see ibid. [“On occasion [a party's] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] opponent's right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery”].)
The
Court has weighed Defendants' need for discovery against Plaintiff’s privacy rights and
concludes that the subpoenas are not overbroad and do not violate Plaintiff’s
privacy rights because they are limited in time to the date of the accident and
afterward. Unless Plaintiff waives a
particular category of damages, Defendants are entitled to discover information about Plaintiff’s potential damages. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Remenchik’s motion to quash the subpoenas served by Defendants David Achemian, Marianna Achemian, and Sooren Achemian on City of Glendale—Glendale Fire Department, Glendale Adventist Emergency Physicians, and Health Net of California.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.