Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 24STCV18357, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV18357, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18357 Hearing Date: January 15, 2025 Dept: 61

BRYANT MARIN vs KING GEORGE ENTERPRISES INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Bryant Marin’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Medical Records is GRANTED in part. The subpoenas are limited to documents and records related to the following: upper respiratory infection, dizziness, nausea, vertigo, fever, trouble breathing blurred vision, rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, cough, headaches, emotional distress, nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. Such records are limited to those created on or after December 1, 2018. No sanctions are awarded.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

ANALYSIS

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

“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).)

Plaintiff Bryant Marin (Plaintiff) seeks to quash two subpoenas for medical records issued by Defendant Park Ocean Condominium Association (Park) to Mark I. Neshoryan, M.D. and Xia Li, M.D., seeking all of Plaintiff’s medical records and associated documents. (Decl. Exh. B.) The California Constitution protects an individual’s right to privacy. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1013.) The right to privacy extends to medical records. (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198.) Communications between patients and their physicians or psychotherapists are also protected by statutory privileges. (Evid. Code §§ 994 [physician-patient], 1014 [psychotherapist-patient].)

None of these protections or privileges is absolute. Physician-patient privilege does not exist if the communication sought is “relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the patient if such issue has been tendered by . . . the patient.” (Evid. Code § 996, subd. (a).) In the constitutional privacy context, “[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.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) “[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. 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, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 842.)

Plaintiff is correct that the only records potentially at issue here are those relating to his alleged disability and emotional distress, as these are the issues that Plaintiff has tendered in this litigation. Defendant’s subpoenas are overbroad in this regard, as they are not limited to the issues tendered. Defendant’s offer to limit the temporal scope of the records sought to the past ten years is insufficient to guard Plaintiff’s privacy interests. (Swain-Gil Decl. ¶¶ 10–11.) However, Plaintiff has not proposed any limitation on the subpoenas, insisting that “[i]t is not Plaintiff’s nor this Court’s job to draft the HOA’s discovery.” (Reply at p. 1.) Moreover, Plaintiff acknowledges that good cause supports some discovery into those medical and mental issues that Plaintiff has tendered. (Motion at p. 6.)

Plaintiff in the Complaint alleges his disability took the form of an upper respiratory infection (Complaint ¶ 65), which manifested in symptoms including dizziness and nausea, vertigo, fever, trouble breathing blurred vision, rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, cough, and headaches. (Complaint ¶¶ 50, 89.) In his Form Interrogatory responses, Plaintiff defined his emotional distress to include “nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety.” (Vasquez Decl. Exh. E.) Defendant may accordingly subpoena records related to these matters, as they are directly relevant to the issues of this litigation, necessary for Defendant’s defense, and tendered by Plaintiff himself.

But Defendant fails to make the case for the ten-year temporal duration of the documents sought. The operative disability and distress are alleged to arise in December 2023. (Complaint ¶ 189.) Given the sensitivity of the documents, a more reasonable and narrowly tailored temporal limitation encompasses only those documents and records dating from five years before December 2023 — i.e. those records created on or after December 1, 2018.

The motion to quash is therefore GRANTED in part. The subpoenas must be limited to documents and records related to the following: upper respiratory infection, dizziness, nausea, vertigo, fever, trouble breathing blurred vision, rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, cough, headaches, emotional distress, nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. Such records are limited to those created on or after December 1, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in this court’s discretion under Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2, subd. (a), amounting to $2,400.00 for six hours of attorney work at $400 per hour. (Swain Decl. ¶ 15.) No sanctions are awarded; Defendant served overbroad subpoenas, yet Plaintiff has not constructively engaged to narrow their scope to concededly relevant matters.