Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV21558, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV21558 Hearing Date: January 23, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff Jae Gon Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), Joan Kang Lee (“Joan Lee”), Sang Ju Lee (“Sang Lee”), Lee’s Discount Drugs (“Discount Drugs”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On January 11, 2024, Joan Lee, Sang Lee, and Discount Drugs filed an answer. In addition, Discount Drugs filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-50 for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On February 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Metro, Joan Lee, Sang Lee, Discount Drugs, and Does 1-20 for negligence (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, 820, subd. (a)) and general negligence.
On February 26, 2024, Metro filed an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. On February 29, 2024, Metro filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Discount Drugs, Joan Lee, Sang Lee, and Zoes 1-10 for total equitable indemnity, partial equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On March 14, 2024, Joan Lee, Sang Lee, and Discount Drugs filed an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.
On April 26, 2024, Joan Lee, Sang Lee, and Discount Drugs filed an answer to Metro’s cross-complaint. In addition, Discount Drugs filed a cross-complaint against Metro for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On May 28, 2024, Metro filed an answer to Discount Drugs’ cross-complaint.
On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash and/or limit subpoenas served on four facilities (Concentra, Venus Medical Center, Haesong Integrative Medical Center, and Tri County Medical Group, Inc.) by Joan Lee, Sang Lee, and Discount Drugs. The motion was set for hearing on December 11, 2024. On November 26, 2024, Joan Lee, Sang Lee, and Discount Drugs (“Defendants”) filed an opposition. On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to January 23, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for September 2, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to quash or limit the subpoenas which Defendants served on Concentra, Venus Medical Center, Haesong Integrative Medical Center, and Tri County Medical Group, Inc., and impose sanctions on Defendants.
Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion and impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
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:
“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.)
“Even highly relevant, nonprivileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s ‘inalienable right of privacy’ provided by [the California Constitution].” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 8:293, p. 8C-97 (Cal. Practice Guide).) The United States constitution also guarantees the right to privacy. (Ibid.)
Privacy rights provide qualified, not absolute, protection. (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:294, p. 8C-98.) “In each case, the Court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery [citation]. The showing required to overcome the protection depends on the nature of the privacy right asserted; in some cases, a simple balancing test is sufficient, while in others, a compelling interest must be shown. ‘Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (Williams).) “The burden is on ‘the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion,’ and then the court must ‘weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557.)
“The party seeking discovery must show a particularized need for the confidential information sought. The broad ‘relevancy to the subject matter’ standard is not enough here. The court must be convinced that the information is directly relevant to a cause of action or defense, i.e., that it is essential to determining the truth of the matters in dispute.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:320, p. 8C-119, emphasis omitted.)
“ ‘[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 [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.)
DISCUSSION
A. The subpoenas
The subpoena issued to Concentra requests:
“Any and all documents, records, as well as electonically stored documents and records, pertaining to the patients medical chart(s), including but not limited to, administration notes: face sheets, h&p discharges; nurses notes: admission assessment plans, progress notes, nursing diagnosis catergories; subjective: emergency services, respiratory, records from other facilities, anything else that does not have a tab; objective: anesthesia, pre-operative surgery and nursing assessments, surgical admission instructions, pre-operative patient education, intraoperative records, intraoperative nursing care plan, operative reports, pathology reports, pacu records, pacut patient care plan, ekg/tele strips, holder monitor reports, radiology and orthopedic reports, labs (cumulative and miscellaneous labs), physician orders and notes, x-rays, film, trigger point criteria, admission assessment, braden scale, observations; assessments: consults (dictated and handwritten), daily assessment sheets, every day; plan: meds (medication administration records), progress notes determining discharge plans; medical billing statements indicating date(s) and time(s) of service; charges congruent with cpt codes, service descriptions, balances, adjustments, chargemaster, physician charges, hospital charges, records of payment, governmental entities, insurance payments, workers compensation payments, liens, as well as documents and records from any other person or entity, regardless of treatment date.”
The subpoena issued to Venus Medical Center requests:
“MEDICAL RECORDS AND FILMS Any and all documents,
records, as well as electonically stored documents and records, pertaining to
the patients medical chart(s), including but not limited to, administration
notes: face sheets, h&p discharges; nurses notes: admission assessment
plans, progress notes, nursing diagnosis catergories; subjective: emergency
services, respiratory, records from other facilities, anything else that does
not have a tab; objective: anesthesia, pre operative surgery and nursing assessments,
surgical admission instructions, pre-operative patient education,
intraoperative records, intraoperative nursing care plan, operative reports,
pathology reports, pacu records, pacut patient care plan, ekg/tele strips,
holder monitor reports, radiology and orthopedic reports, labs (cumulative and
miscellaneous labs), physician orders and notes, x-rays, film, trigger point
criteria, admission assessment, braden scale, observations; assessments:
consults (dictated and handwritten), daily assessment sheets, every day; plan:
meds (medication administration records), progress notes determining discharge
plans; medical billing statements indicating date(s) and time(s) of service;
charges congruent with cpt codes, service descriptions, balances, adjustments,
chargemaster, physician charges, hospital charges, records of payment,
governmental entities, insurance payments, workers compensation payments,
liens, as well as documents and records from any other person or entity,
regardless of treatment date.
“BILLING Itemized statements of charges, pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of the individual named herein including: any and all medical bills, medical billing records, liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing, records showing write-offs of amounts billed, billing write-downs, billing write-ups and records of payments(s) and payment transactions by insurance carriers, governmental entities, and/or any other person or entity from any and all sources regardless of treatment date.”
The subpoena issued to Haeseong Integrative Medicine Center requests:
“MEDICAL RECORDS AND FILMS Any and all documents,
records, as well as electonically stored documents and records, pertaining to
the patients medical chart{s), including but not limited to, administration
notes: face sheets, h&p discharges; nurses notes: admission assessment
plans, progress notes, nursing diagnosis catergories; subjective: emergency
services, respiratory, records from other facilities, anything else that does
not have a tab; objective: anesthesia, pre operative surgery and nursing assessments,
surgical admission instructions, pre-operative patient education,
intraoperative records, intraoperative nursing care plan, operative reports,
pathology reports, pacu records, pacut patient care plan, ekg/tele strips,
holder monitor reports, radiology and orthopedic reports, labs {cumulative and
miscellaneous labs), physician orders and notes, x-rays, film, trigger point
criteria, admission assessment, braden scale, observations; assessments:
consults {dictated and handwritten), daily assessment sheets, every day; plan:
meds {medication administration records), progress notes determining discharge
plans; medical billing statements indicating date{s) and time{s) of service;
charges congruent with cpt codes, service descriptions, balances, adjustments,
chargemaster, physician charges, hospital charges, records of payment,
governmental entities, insurance payments, workers compensation payments,
liens, as well as documents and records from any other person or entity,
regardless of treatment date.
“BILLING Itemized statements of charges, pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of the individual named herein including: any and all medical bills, medical billing records, liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing, records showing write-offs of amounts billed, billing write-downs, billing write-ups and records of payments(s) and payment transactions by insurance carriers, governmental entities, and/or any other person or entity from any and all sources regardless of treatment date.”
The subpoena issued to Tri County Medical Group, Inc. requests:
“MEDICAL RECORDS AND FILMS Any and all documents,
records, as well as electonically stored documents and records, pertaining to
the patients medical chart(s), including but not limited to, administration
notes: face sheets, h&p discharges; nurses notes: admission assessment
plans, progress notes, nursing diagnosis catergories; subjective: emergency
services, respiratory, records from other facilities, anything else that does
not have a tab; objective: anesthesia, pre operative surgery and nursing assessments,
surgical admission instructions, pre-operative patient education,
intraoperative records, intraoperative nursing care plan, operative reports,
pathology reports, pacu records, pacut patient care plan, ekg/tele strips,
holder monitor reports, radiology and orthopedic reports, labs (cumulative and
miscellaneous labs), physician orders and notes, x-rays, film, trigger point
criteria, admission assessment, braden scale, observations; assessments:
consults (dictated and handwritten), daily assessment sheets, every day; plan:
meds (medication administration records), progress notes determining discharge
plans; medical billing statements indicating date(s) and time(s) of service;
charges congruent with cpt codes, service descriptions, balances, adjustments,
chargemaster, physician charges, hospital charges, records of payment,
governmental entities, insurance payments, workers compensation payments,
liens, as well as documents and records from any other person or entity,
regardless of treatment date.
“BILLING Itemized statements of charges, pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of the individual named herein including: any and all medical bills, medical billing records, liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing, records showing write-offs of amounts billed, billing write-downs, billing write-ups and records of payments(s} and payment transactions by insurance carriers, governmental entities, and/or any other person or entity from any and all sources regardless of treatment date.”
B. Plaintiff’s motion
Invoking his privacy rights, Plaintiff asks the Court to quash the subpoenas or limit them to permit Defendants to obtain only (1) information about the body parts which Plaintiff alleges were injured in the accidents which form the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint, (2) information about Plaintiff’s legs, (3) information about Plaintiff’s head and headaches, and (4) Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation file. Plaintiff also asks the Court to limit the time frame which the subpoenas cover.
In opposition, Defendants argue that they need access to all of Plaintiff’s medical information to determine Plaintiff’s life expectancy and future economic damages.
The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and weighed Plaintiff’s privacy rights against Defendants’ right to seek discoverable information. The Court concludes that the subpoena is overbroad and violates Plaintiff’s privacy rights to the extent that is not limited to records concerning body parts which Plaintiff alleges were injured in the accidents which form the basis for Plaintiff’s complaint (neck, lower back, right shoulder, legs, head and headaches), and Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation file.
The
Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion in part and limits the subpoenas to
records concerning Plaintiff’s neck,
lower back, right shoulder, legs, head and headaches, and Plaintiff’s workers’
compensation file. The Court limits the
time frame of the subpoenas to 10 years before the September 28, 2022 incident
alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. In all
other respects, the Court denies the motion.
The Court denies Plaintiff's and Defendants' requests for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The
Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff Jae Gon Kim’s motion
to quash subpoenas issued by Defendants Joan
Kang Lee, Sang Ju Lee, and Lee’s Discount Drugs to Concentra, Venus Medical Center, Haesong Integrative
Medical Center, and Tri County Medical Group, Inc. for medical and billing
records. The Court limits the subpoenas
to records concerning Plaintiff Jae Gon Kim’s neck, lower back, right shoulder, legs,
head and headaches, and Plaintiff Jae Gon
Kim’s workers’ compensation file. The
Court limits the time frame of the subpoenas to 10 years before the September
28, 2022 incident alleged in Plaintiff Jae
Gon Kim’s complaint. In all other
respects, the Court denies the motion.
The Court denies the request for sanctions of Defendants Joan Kang Lee, Sang Ju Lee, and Lee's Discount Drugs.
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.