Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV12063, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV12063 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff Tony Lavelle Baker (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Edgar Molina Lopez (“Lopez”) as Doe 1 and Zuly Franco Corado (“Corado”) as Doe 2.
On September 28, 2023, the Court dismissed Metro without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On October 27, 2023, Lopez and Corado (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash 11 subpoenas which Defendants had issued for Plaintiff's medical, billing, and radiological records. Defendants did not file an opposition.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to quash Defendants’ 11 subpoenas.
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).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a), provides:
“(a) Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)
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.)
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.)
“ ‘[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”].)
“[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.)
“Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. [Citation.] The scope of any disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed by the least intrusive manner. [Citation.]” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint alleges the following:
On July 8, 2022, at or near the intersection of Century Boulevard and Normandie Avenue in Los Angeles, Defendants negligently operated, owned, and entrusted a motor vehicle, and employed persons who operated the motor vehicle in the course of their employment, injuring Plaintiff.
Defendants negligently and carelessly serviced, repaired, maintained, inspected, owned, entrusted, and operated Defendant’s vehicle, causing Plaintiff’s injuries.
Defendant violated Vehicle Code section 22350 in operating the motor vehicle, causing the incident and Plaintiff's injuries and damages. Plaintiff's damages include past and future pain and suffering/ emotional distress; past and future loss of earnings; past and future loss of earning capacity; past and future medical expenses; past and future health care expenses; past and future incident expenses; and past and future household services.
B. The subpoenas for medical records
1. Overview
On May 31, 2024, Defendants served eleven subpoenas for Plaintiff’s records on (1) Tower Orthopaedics & Sport Medicine, (2) Tower Orthopaedics & Sport Medicine, (3) Rajan Patel, M.D., (4) Rajan Patel, M.D., (5) PeteHealth, (6) PeteHealth, (7) Abraham Golbari, M.D., (8) Abraham Golbari, M.D., (9) Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital-Meds, (10) Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital-bills, and (11) Kemper Independence Insurance Company-1. (See Santiago Cortes dec. ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff contends that the subpoenas “seek the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical, billing, and radiological records without limitation as to scope.” According to Plaintiff, the subpoenas “do not specify with particularity the information Defendant needs.” However, the motion does not discuss the specific language of any subpoena.
2. Subpoenas
a. Subpoena issued to Tower Orthopaedics & Sport Medicine
“Any
and all documents and medical records pertaining to the examination, care,
diagnosis, and treatment of the patient, including but not limited to all
office, emergency room, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, nurses'
and doctors' notes, radiological reports, color photographs or laser colored
copies of photographs, physical therapy and rehabilitation records including
all descriptions of exercises prescribed; any and all records regarding
prescriptions, including the type of medication, date prescription was filled,
doctor who wrote the prescription, instructions on taking the medication, and
dosage; and any other information available regarding the
prescription(s); sign-in sheets, and documentation which indicate date(s) and
time(s) of patients' appointments.
“Medical records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
b. Subpoena issued to Tower Orthopaedics & Sport Medicine
“Any
and all itemized statements of charges and billing, rendered in the course of
the care, treatment and examination of the patient, including all health
insurance information and claim forms; medical bills, medical billing records,
liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing,
records showing write-offs of amounts billed, and records of payment by
insurance carriers, governmental entities and/or any other person or entity.
“Medical records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
c. Subpoena issued to Rajan Patel, M.D.
Any
and all itemized statements of charges and billing, rendered in the course of
the care, treatment and examination of the patient, including all health
insurance information and claim forms; medical bills, medical billing records,
liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing,
records showing write-offs of amounts billed, and records of payment by
insurance carriers, governmental entities and/or any other person or entity.
“Medical records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
d. Subpoena issued to Rajan Patel, M.D.
“Any
and all documents and medical records pertaining to the examination, care,
diagnosis, and treatment of the patient, including but not limited to all
office, emergency room, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, nurses'
and doctors' notes, radiological reports, color photographs or laser colored
copies of photographs, physical therapy and rehabilitation records including
all descriptions of exercises prescribed; any and all records regarding
prescriptions, including the type of medication, date prescription was filled,
doctor who wrote the prescription, instructions on taking the medication, and
dosage; and any other information available regarding the
prescription(s); sign-in sheets, and documentation which indicate date(s) and
time(s) of patients' appointments.
“Medical records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
e. Subpoena issued to PeteHealth
“Any
and all documents and medical records pertaining to the examination, care,
diagnosis, and treatment of the patient, including but not limited to all
office, emergency room, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, nurses'
and doctors' notes, radiological reports, color photographs or laser colored
copies of photographs, physical therapy and rehabilitation records including
all descriptions of exercises prescribed; any and all records regarding
prescriptions, including the type of medication, date prescription was filled,
doctor who wrote the prescription, instructions on taking the medication, and
dosage; and any other information available regarding the
prescription(s); sign-in sheets, and documentation which indicate date(s) and
time(s) of patients' appointments.
“Medical
records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
“Any and all itemized statements of charges and billing, rendered in the course of the care, treatment and examination of the patient, including all health insurance information and claim forms; medical bills, medical billing records, liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing, records showing write-offs of mounts billed, and records of payment by insurance carriers, governmental entities and/or any other person or entity.
“Medical
records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
“Any
and all itemized statements of charges and billing, rendered in the course of
the care, treatment and examination of the patient, including all health
insurance information and claim forms; medical bills, medical billing records,
liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing,
records showing write-offs of amounts billed, and records of payment by
insurance carriers, governmental entities and/or any other person or entity.
“Medical records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
h. Subpoena issued to Abraham Golbari, M.D.
“Any
and all documents and medical records pertaining to the examination, care,
diagnosis, and treatment of the patient, including but not limited to all
office, emergency room, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, nurses'
and doctors' notes, radiological reports, color photographs or laser colored
copies of photographs, physical therapy and rehabilitation records including
all descriptions of exercises prescribed; any and all records regarding
prescriptions, including the type of medication, date prescription was filled,
doctor who wrote the prescription, instructions on taking the medication, and
dosage; and any other information available regarding the prescription(s); sign-in
sheets, and documentation which indicate date(s) and time(s) of patients'
appointments.
“Medical
records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
“Any
and all documents and medical records pertaining to the examination, care,
diagnosis, and treatment of the patient, including but not limited to all
office, emergency room, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, nurses'
and doctors' notes, radiological reports, color photographs or laser colored
copies of photographs, physical therapy and rehabilitation records including
all descriptions of exercises prescribed; any and all records regarding
prescriptions, including the type of medication, date prescription was filled,
doctor who wrote the prescription, instructions on taking the medication, and
dosage; and any other information available regarding the
prescription(s); sign-in sheets, and documentation which indicate date(s) and
time(s) of patients' appointments.
“Medical records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
j. Subpoena issued to Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital-bills
“Any
and all itemized statements of charges and billing, rendered in the course of
the care, treatment and examination of the patient, including all health
insurance information and claim forms; medical bills, medical billing records,
liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing,
records showing write-offs of mounts billed, and records of payment by
insurance carriers, governmental entities and/or any other person or entity.
“Medical records, hand written notes and billing from 2020 to present.”
k. Subpoena issued to Kemper Independence Insurance Company-1
“Any and all
“Claims file to include all medical records and
billing and demand letter, for plaintiff, Tony Lavelle Baker, for date of
accident of 3/18/2020, claim number D0408592A20."
Plaintiff
argues that Defendants’ subpoenas are overbroad, seek information “largely irrelevant” to the case, and violate his privacy
rights. Plaintiff asks the Court to
limit the subpoenas to Plaintiff’s “injuries to his back, right shoulder, and
bilateral knees.”
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s arguments and weighed Plaintiff’s privacy rights against Defendants’ right to seek discoverable information. The Court concludes that the subpoenas are overbroad to the extent that they request records concerning body parts in addition to Plaintiff’s back, right shoulder, and bilateral knees.
The Court modifies the subpoenas to limit their application to records reflecting medical treatment of Plaintiff’s back, right shoulder, and bilateral knees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff Tony Lavelle Baker’s motion to quash subpoenas issued by Defendants Edgar Molina Lopez and Zuly Franco Corado to Tower Orthopaedics & Sport Medicine (2 subpoenas), Rajan Patel, M.D. (2 subpoenas), PeteHealth (2 subpoenas), Abraham Golbari, M.D. (2 subpoenas), Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital-Meds, Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital-bills, and Kemper Independence Insurance Company-1. The Court modifies the subpoenas to limit their application to records reflecting medical treatment of Plaintiff’s back, right shoulder, and bilateral knees. In all other respects, the Court DENIES the motion.
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.