Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV00115, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00115, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00115 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Otto Beasley v. Guy Shih, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash and/or Modify Defendants’ Deposition Subpoenas of Plaintiff’s Medical Records and Request for Monetary Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to quash and/or modify Defendants’ deposition subpoenas of Plaintiff’s medical records, and hereby QUASHES all 29 deposition subpoenas, without prejudice to Defendants issuing more narrowly framed, more precisely tailored subpoenas which do not improperly impinge on protected information. The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,760.00.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is an auto accident case. On January 10, 2024, plaintiff Otto Beasley (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Guy Shih, Jocelyn Shih, Shawn Tang (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff moved to quash and/or modify Defendants’ 29 deposition subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical records. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(5), of the California Rules of Court requires a separate statement to be submitted with a motion to quash a subpoena for production of documents at a deposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(5).) Plaintiff did not provide a separate statement with this motion, which renders the motion defective. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892.) Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion to still consider Plaintiff’s motion, but admonishes Plaintiff to comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court going forward. (See Id., at p. 893.)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Although the moving party is not required to meet and confer before bringing a motion to quash a deposition subpoena, (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1), the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s efforts to do so (Lu Decl., ¶¶ 4-7).

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to quash or modify the 29 deposition subpoenas defendants served on various hospitals and health care providers. (See Lu Decl., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff contends the subpoenas improperly seek disclosure of medical records unrelated to this action, such as records that predate the accident, and otherwise violate Plaintiff’s privacy rights. Plaintiff contends the records requested are irrelevant to this action, improperly burden Plaintiff, are harassing, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff contends these subpoenas are overbroad and seek Plaintiff’s entire medical history, including before the accident, and are therefore not narrowly tailored to the relevant issues. Plaintiff indicates having agreed to produce medical and billing records related to Plaintiff’s spine treatment and left shoulder dating back ten years from the date of the accident, and that such production should be enough for Defendants, but received no response. Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks to modify the subpoenas to be limited medical records involving those parts that were injured in the accident and go back only ten years.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to be well taken. The language in the subpoenas reads as follows:

Complete records, including but not limited to, intake forms, forms filled out by the patient, emails to and from the patient, emails to and from the patient’s attorney, correspondence between your office and the patient’s attorney, correspondence between your office and the patient, correspondence and emails between your office and any “Payor” (payor means any person or organization which pays, in whole or part, for the services rendered to the patient), emails concerning the patient, log entries, post-it notes, memos, internal notations, attorney liens and letters of credit, payment information, records concerning or relating to scheduling, records from other health care providers, correspondence, medical records, nursing records, physician assistant records, charts, chart notes, treatment records, lab reports, cardiology reports, radiology reports, MRI reports, x-ray and CAT scan reports, fluoroscopy images, physical therapy records, case history, emergency records, diagnosis, prognosis, admit and discharge records, disability slips, prescriptions, phone call notes and logs, photographs, sign-in and sign-out sheets, documents which document if records have been checked out or provided to the patient or others, all billing records showing all charges, payments, write-offs, emails and correspondence related to billings or collections, emails and correspondence related to when payment will be made, all documents concerning any payments, all contracts between your office and anyone who has purchased your accounts receivable concerning the patient referenced in this subpoena, documents establishing your right to payment, plus true and complete copies of all medical imaging, x-rays, fluoroscopy and MRJ scans, including metadata. This subpoena applies all records from the date of the first visit to the present, and includes electronic records and physical paper records, including those located in storage. **Prior to duplication of medical imaging, please provide a breakdown of all medical imaging in your possession, custody, or control. Medical imaging which can be produced electronically, like modern x-rays, CT scans, and MRI scans must be produced in electronic format on a DVD or flash drive.

(Lu Decl., Ex. 1.)

The Court finds this language is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is effectively a “shotgun” discovery request, which is improper. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; W. Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Ct. In & For Los Angeles Cnty. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 419.) This language contains no time limitation, and seeks irrelevant information predating the subject accident. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Moreover, the fact Defendants served this same subpoena on 29 different hospitals and medical service providers further underscores that this is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and also appears intended to harass Plaintiff. (See Id.; Flora Crane Serv., Inc. v. Superior Ct. In & For City & Cnty. of San Francisco (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 779.)

Furthermore, the documents requested clearly implicate Plaintiff’s privacy rights, as they involve medical information. (Davis v. Superior Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1019 [“It has been held that a person's medical profile is an area of privacy which cannot be compromised except upon good cause. [Citation.] We may also safely conclude that the right of privacy extends to the details of one's personal life. [Citation.]”; see also Hallendorf v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 553, 556-557 [mere filing of a personal injury lawsuit does not open up “all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny. [Citation.]”)

Finally, the Court further notes that Defendants did not oppose this motion, which undermines their subpoenas because they have not demonstrated good cause for seeking Plaintiff’s past medical records. (See Davis v. Superior Ct., supra, 7 Cal.App.4^th at p. 1019.) The Court also construes it as a tacit admission that Plaintiff’s arguments are meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and hereby quashes all 29 deposition subpoenas.

With respect to monetary sanctions, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request in the reduced amount of $2,760, comprised of 4.5 hours preparing the motion and appearing at the hearing on the motion, multiplied by the hourly rate of $600.00, plus the $60.00 filing fee.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.