Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV01917, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01917    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 30

HAMLET HOVHANNISYAN vs SYDNEE ERIN VALDES, et al.

Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The Court declines to grant the motion in full. Instead, the Court modifies the subpoenas to only seek information relating to the body parts at issue, i.e. neck, back, shoulder, elbow, and knee.  The subpoenas as to the insurance records will also be modified to exclude written, recorded or transcribed, statements of Plaintiff as to the prior incident.  Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION    

Plaintiffs move to quash or modify Defendants’ deposition subpoenas for medical, billing, and radiology records, and insurance records on the grounds that records are protected under the right to privacy, privileged under the Insurance Code, work product doctrine, and attorney-client privilege, and the subpoenas are overbroad.

Plaintiff argues the subpoenas violate his constitutional right to privacy and are overbroad as the subpoenas are not limited to the body parts at issue in this case, which are his neck, back, shoulder, elbow, and knee.

The right of privacy of individuals is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.) The framework for evaluating invasions of privacy in discovery have been clarified in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. There, the California Supreme Court held that, generally, “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 533, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) The court rejected the cases which held that the party seeking protected information must always show a compelling need or interest. (Id. at p. 557.) Instead, the court held, “[o]nly obvious invasions of interest fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff has raised an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his medical records and his insurance records and history under the circumstances. (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557.) However, as previously discussed, Plaintiff’s privacy interests must be balanced against Defendant’s right to obtain discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.210.) While Plaintiff has put his injuries relating to his neck, back, shoulder, elbow, and knee at issue in this case by filing a lawsuit against Defendant, the subpoenas seeking Plaintiff’s entire medical, billing, radiological, and insurance records are overbroad. Defendant has not articulated any facts establishing a legitimate or important countervailing interest such disclosure would serve. Defendant only argues that Plaintiff put his medical records at issue. However as noted above, Plaintiff has not put his entire medical history and all statements he made regarding a prior accident at issue by claiming injuries to certain body parts. Defendant points to no facts or evidence to show that Plaintiff’s prior statements to his insurance company are probative as to any issue regarding the subject incident.

Therefore, the subpoenas will be modified to only seek information relating to the body parts at issue in this case. The subpoenas for insurance records will further be modified to exclude written, recorded or transcribed, statements of Plaintiff as to the prior incident.