Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV00786, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV00786, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00786 Hearing Date: June 6, 2024 Dept: 61

ABIGAIL GOMEZ vs MILLENNIUM MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Abigail Gomez’s Motion to Compel Deposition Answers from Defendant Ronit Shamoilzadeh is GRANTED as to the questions, “Have you ever been diagnosed with a memory problem?” and “[W]hat was the reason why you were at the emergency room in November of 2021?” The motion is otherwise DENIED. No sanctions are awarded.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ANSWERS

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (a).) The party moving for an order compelling third-party compliance with a deposition subpoena must make a fact-specific showing of good cause for the request. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223–24.)

Plaintiff Abigail Gomez (Plaintiff) moves to compel further answers from Defendant Ronit Shamoilzadeh (Shamoilzadeh) to two deposition questions, which Defendant’s counsel instructed her not to answer on the grounds of medical privacy. These questions are:

1. “Have you ever been diagnosed with a memory problem?”

2. [W]hat was the reason why you were at the emergency room in November of 2021?”

Plaintiff reasons that the case against Defendants stems in large part from disturbing text messages sent by Shamoilzadeh to Plaintiff in December 2021 (See FAC ¶¶ 17–29), and that Defendants have indicated their defense against Plaintiff’s suit rests in part upon Shamoilzadeh’s hospitalization in November 2021 or the condition related thereto. (Separate Statement at pp. 2–5.)

Plaintiff also notes that since the deposition took place on January 16, 2024, Defendants’ counsel sought leave to be relieved as counsel for Shamoilzadeh specifically, on the grounds that a conflict had emerged between the Defendants based on their pending divorce and restraining order proceedings, expressly indicating in the declaration supporting the motion to be relieved that Defendant had been involuntarily confined to a psychiatric hospital in early February, and “[i]t is my opinion that the underlying reasons for the confinement may be relevant to the conduct at issue in this lawsuit; specifically, a series of allegedly offensive text messages sent to Plaintiff.” (See 3/22/2024 Declaration.)1 Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct a further deposition into this subject matter and into Defendants’ recent divorce proceedings. (Separate Statement at p. 5.)

Defendants in opposition argues that Plaintiff’s inquiries into Shamoilzadeh’s potential memory conditions and November 2021 hospitalization intrude into protected zones of medical privacy. (Opposition at pp. 10–11.) They further argue that Plaintiff in follow-up questions has already derived answers to the questions at issue — namely by Shamoilzadeh’s response to questions concerning medications taken after the hospitalization, which she indicated were for muscle pain. (Opposition at pp. 10–11.) Defendants finally argue that Plaintiff impermissibly seeks to reopen the deposition to address matters that were not the subject of prior questioning and without reference to the ordinary procedure for reopening depositions under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.610. (Opposition at pp. 11–12.)

“It is established that patients do have a right to privacy in their medical **547 information under our state Constitution.” (Medical Bd. of California v. Chiarottino (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 623, 631.) “In determining whether disclosure is required [against a privacy objection], the court must indulge in a ‘careful balancing’ of the right of a civil litigant to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, and the right of the third parties to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their sensitive personal affairs, on the other. The court must consider the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure and availability of alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. Based on an application of these factors, the more sensitive the nature of the personal information that is sought to be discovered, the more substantial the showing of the need for the discovery that will be required before disclosure will be permitted.” (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004, internal citations omitted.)

Plaintiff has shown good cause for seeking further responses to the two questions at issue in this motion. Although inquiries into Shamoilzadeh’s potential memory-related diagnoses and November 2021 hospitalization undoubtedly intrude into Shamoilzadeh’s interest in medical privacy, Defendants do not challenge Plaintiff’s characterization of their reliance on these medical circumstances as a part of their defense in this action. Plaintiff’s counsel states that Defendant’s counsel questioned Plaintiff at her own deposition with reference to Shamoilzadeh’s November 2021 hospitalization and her knowledge thereof (Osorio Decl. ¶ 4.), and Defendants’ counsel refused to clarify in informal meet-and-confer correspondence whether the hospitalization would form part of their defense. (Osorio Decl. Exh. C.) Defendants’ opposition also does not challenge this point. Thus good cause supports the two inquiries at issue in this motion, overmatching Shamoilzadeh’s privacy interest in the subject matter of the questions.

It is also not true that Shamoilzadeh testified that she went to the hospital for muscle pain, as Defendants contend. Rather, she testified that the medications she took following the hospitalization were for muscle pain. (Johnson Decl. Exh. A at p. 139.) She did not testify to the reasons for her hospitalization, because her counsel instructed her not to answer the question. It would be speculative to assume that a person who received pain medication after a hospital visit went to the hospital solely for pain relief.

Defendants are correct, however, that further inquiries by deposition into Shamoilzadeh’s subsequent psychiatric confinement, and Defendants’ divorce proceedings, are beyond the scope of the present motion. No questions were asked of Shamoilzadeh regarding these subjects at her deposition, largely because these occurrences post-dated the deposition. The request for further deposition on these subjects is not in the nature of one for further deposition answers under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.480, but one to reopen the deposition under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.610, which Plaintiff does not mention in the motion or reply. The grounds for the relevance of these matters is speculative, coming as it does solely from the declaration of Defendants’ counsel in support of the motion to be relieved as counsel for Shamoilzadeh, and does not appear to have otherwise been the object of written discovery. Conversely, the proposed areas of inquiry are comparatively vast and intrusive, probing into the breakdown of Defendants’ marriage following the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to the two questions actually asked of Shamoilzadeh at her previous deposition. The motion is otherwise DENIED.

II. SANCTIONS

”The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j).)

Plaintiff here seeks $2,510.00 in sanctions for the motion, representing seven hours of attorney work at $350 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Osorio Decl. ¶¶ 17–18.) No such sanctions are appropriate, as Plaintiff has obtained partial relief, and Defendants opposed the motion based on Plaintiff’s legitimate privacy interests.