Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV38660, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38660    Hearing Date: October 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff Kenneth Sheppard filed this action against Defendants Carlos Isaac Lozano (“Lozano”), Student Transportation of America, Inc. (“STA”), and Does 1-20 for negligence. 

On February 3, 2023, Lozano and STA (“Defendants”) filed an answer. 

On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash/motion for protective order regarding Defendants’ subpoenas for medical records to be heard on August 17, 2023. On August 4, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for June 10, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiff requests that the Court quash the subpoenas for records served on Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company and Blue Shield of California and issue a protective order to prevent the production of documents requested by the subpoenas. 

Defendants request that the Court 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."

DISCUSSION 

A.   Complaint 

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on May 7, 2021, Lozano, while driving an STA bus, negligently made an illegal and unsafe lane change and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle.  As a result of the collision, “Plaintiff suffered injuries consisting of, but not limited to, severe permanent injuries to his body all to his general damage; the injuries thus received by Plaintiff have impaired his health, strength and activity and have thereby caused and continue to cause him mental, and physical pain and suffering. In addition to the general damages sustained by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered expenses for medical treatment.”  (Complaint ¶ 11.) 

B.   Subpoenas 

Defendants issued subpoenas to Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company and Blue Shield of California for medical records.  The subpoenas request medical records for the last 10 years 

“regarding referring or relating to injuries consisting of, but not limited to, severe permanent injuries to his body all to his general damage; the injuries thus received by Plaintiff have impaired his health, strength and activity and have thereby caused and continue to cause him mental, and physical pain and suffering; and lower back pain, left ankle pain, and forehead pain. Plaintiff has also suffered general damages which include pain, mental suffering loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, anxiety, and emotional distress.” 

C.   Analysis 

          “[A]lthough in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff's past medical history to scrutiny.”  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849 (Britt) [trial court erred by placing “absolutely no limit on defendant's efforts to obtain wholesale disclosure of each plaintiff's lifetime medical history”].) “[P]laintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.”  (Id. at p. 864, fn. omitted.)    

“It should be understood, of course, that insofar as a number of injuries or illnesses, some related and some unrelated to the [alleged tortious conduct], have contributed to a medical condition placed in issue by a plaintiff, defendant is entitled to obtain information as to all such injuries or illnesses. Thus, for example, if a plaintiff claims that [alleged tortious conduct] ha[s] damaged his respiratory system, plaintiff would be obliged to disclose all medical information relating to his respiratory condition and could not limit discovery simply to those . . . incidents [related to the alleged tortious conduct] which have allegedly impaired his condition.”  (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 864, fn. 9.) 

Plaintiff argues the subpoenas are overbroad and violate his constitutional right to privacy.  He asks the Court to order Defendants to narrow the subpoenas to require production only of “medical records within the last ten years that involve injury or treatment for Kenneth Sheppard’s back, left ankle, forehead and for any depression, anxiety, stress, or emotional distress related to any such injury after May 7, 2021.” 

Plaintiff’s proposal to limit the time frame the subpoenas cover would unfairly restrict Defendants’ ability to conduct discovery of Plaintiff’s claimed damages.  At the same time, the wording of Defendants’ subpoenas is unclear and risks production of documents that do not meet Britt’s guidelines. 

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to quash.  Defendants may issue new subpoenas that are consistent with Britt and that clearly state what kinds of records are being sought. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Kenneth Sheppard’s motion to quash subpoenas for medical records. 

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.