Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00370, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00370    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

           This is an action for personal injury arising out of the dissolution of a marriage.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Carter John Hasbrook (Carter) alleges that Defendant Monica Cionne Hasbrook (Monica) hit him over the head with a skateboard on February 23, 2021, causing a concussion and a traumatic brain injury. He seeks damages to recover for his medical costs associated with the injury. The complaint asserts seven causes of action but only provides five in the caption: (1) Battery, (2) Assault, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Negligence and (5) Breach of Contract. The other two are Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Violation of the Bane Act.

In the cross-complaint, Cross-Complainant Monica alleges that Cross-Defendant Carter drugged her on July 24, 2021 with controlled substances while she was in the hospital for unrelated injuries. At the time of the alleged drugging, Monica and Carter were legally separated from one another. The cross-complaint states four causes of action:       (1) Dependent Adult Abuse, (2) Assault, (3) Battery and (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.  

          Before the Court is Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Carter’s motion to quash subpoenas served on two addiction treatment centers he received treatment from, Apex Recovery LLC (Apex) and Southern California Recovery Centers LLC (Southern California Recovery); and the hospital where he works, Las Encinas Hospital (Las Encinas). As the subpoenas to Apex and California Recovery seek evidence that is relevant to the complaint, the motions are denied. As the subpoena to Las Encinas seeks evidence that is relevant to the complaint, the motion to modify is denied.

          Carter first filed his complaint on February 21, 2023. Carter filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC) on June 26, 2023. Carter filed the three motions to quash on September 29, 2023. Monica filed an opposition on October 19, 2023.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          Code Civ. Proc. §1987.1:

“(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.”

          Subd. (b)(1) permits a party to seek relief.

          Code Civ. Proc. §1987.2 provides for an award of sanctions in the court’s discretion. “[I]n making an order pursuant to motion made 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.”

III.     ANALYSIS

A. Deposition Subpoena to Apex

The operative FAC alleges that Carter “was harmed from the attack” (FAC ¶ 82), that he suffers from “post-traumatic stress disorder and post-concussive syndrome” (FAC ¶ 20) and that he “was severely harmed by the attack and continues to suffer harm. There is a likelihood that Plaintiff will continue to suffer harm for the rest of his life.” (FAC ¶ 89.)  Monica seeks evidence to disprove this allegation. The subpoena is an effort to obtain such information. It seeks “All documents and records pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of Thomas John Carter Hasbrook aka Carter Hasbrook, including but not limited to, sign-in sheets, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, ambulance records, emergency room and lab reports, x-ray reports, pathology reports, prescription and pharmacy records and any other records pertaining to Thomas John Carter Hasbrook aka Carter Hasbrook from February 1, 2018 to and including the present.” (Gillick Decl., Exh. 2, p. 109.)

Carter seeks to quash the subpoena on three grounds: (1) the records sought are not relevant; (2) disclosure would violate Carter’s privacy rights and (3) the subpoena is harassing.  Because the subpoena seeks information that is relevant to issues in this litigation and does not seek privileged information, the motion to quash is denied.

i. Relevancy

As to the complaint, Carter alleges he required medical treatment and care because of Monica’s conduct. (Complaint ¶ 22.) In each of his causes of action, he alleges that she caused him harm. As the harm alleged is medical in nature, Carter’s medical records after the alleged injuring conduct by Monica is highly relevant as to the harms he suffered. (CCP § 2017.010.) Relevance is a broad concept and is not limited to admissible evidence but also evidence that is calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010, Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531,541.)

As to the cross-complaint, none of Monica’s causes of action require proof that Carter was receiving medical care. Her causes of action for dependent adult abuse, battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress do not require proof that Carter, who she alleges drugged her, was himself receiving medical care.

Additionally, Monica urges that Carter has alleged mental and psychological injuries as well as treatment and as such, whether or not “he has any pre-existing conditions which maybe the source of his alleged infirmity” are also discoverable. (Opposition, p. 8: 24-26.) Monica cites Vinson v. Superior Court for the proposition that by alleging a causal link between his injury and her conduct, Carter implicitly claims that his distress was not caused by something else. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)

Here, the discovery sought is relevant to the claims in the complaint. Accordingly, the motion to quash should be denied.

ii. Privacy

The subpoena seeks medical records, which on balance, are the type of personal information protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const. Art. 1 §1.) However, as Carter has placed his mental and physical state in controversy by filing the complaint alleging assault, battery and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and consequential medical treatment, these records are discoverable. (Vinson v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833,842; Moskowitz v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 857.)

iii. Harassment

Carter asserts that Monica will use information provided by this subpoena to harass him. (Motion, p. 7: 6.) Without further explication as to why Carter believes this will occur or citation to authority in support, the Court declines to consider the merits of this conclusory statement.

B. Deposition Subpoena to Southern California Recovery

The operative FAC alleges that Carter “was harmed from the attack” (FAC ¶ 82), that he suffers from “post-traumatic stress disorder and post-concussive syndrome” (FAC ¶ 20) and that he “was severely harmed by the attack and continues to suffer harm. There is a likelihood that Plaintiff will continue to suffer harm for the rest of his life.” (FAC ¶ 89.)  Monica seeks evidence to disprove this allegation. The subpoena is an effort to obtain such information. It seeks “All documents and records pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of Thomas John Carter Hasbrook aka Carter Hasbrook, including but not limited to, sign-in sheets, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, ambulance records, emergency room and lab reports, x-ray reports, pathology reports, prescription and pharmacy records and any other records pertaining to Thomas John Carter Hasbrook aka Carter Hasbrook from February 1, 2018 to and including the present.” (Gillick Decl., Exh. 2 p.99.)

Carter seeks to quash the subpoena on three grounds: (1) the records sought are not relevant; (2) disclosure would violate Carter’s privacy rights and (3) the subpoena is harassing.  Because the subpoena seeks information that is relevant to issues in this litigation, the motion to quash is denied.

i. Relevance

As to the complaint, Carter alleges he required medical treatment and care because of Monica’s conduct. (Complaint ¶ 22.) In each of his causes of action, he alleges that she caused him harm. He then alleges that the harm he suffered was physical and mental and he required treatment because of it. As the harm alleged is in part medical, Carter’s medical record is highly relevant. (CCP § 2017.010.)

As to the cross-complaint, none of Monica’s causes of action require proof that Carter was receiving medical treatment. Her cause of action for dependent adult abuse, battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress do not require proof that Carter, who she alleges drugged her, was himself receiving medical care as a result of a separate alleged incident of spousal abuse.

Monica also urges that Carter has alleged mental and psychological injuries and as such, whether “he has any pre-existing conditions which maybe the source of his alleged infirmity” are also discoverable. (Opposition, p. 8: 24-26.) Monica cites Vinson v. Superior Court for the proposition that by alleging a causal link between his injury and her conduct, Carter implicitly claims that his distress was not caused by something else. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)  

In sum, the discovery sought has been proven to be relevant as to the causes of action on the complaint.

ii. Privacy

The subpoena seeks medical records, which on balance, are the type of personal information protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const. Art. 1 §1.) However, as Carter put his mental and physical state in controversy by filing the complaint alleging assault, battery and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, these records are discoverable. (Vinson v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833,842; Moskowitz v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 857.) The Court notes that this implicit waiver of Carter’s constitutional rights is to be narrowly construed and only covers discovery directly relevant to Carter’s claim. (Davis v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008,1014, referencing Vinson v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833,842.) The records sought are directly relevant, as discussed above.

iii. Harassment

Carter asserts that Monica will use information provided by this subpoena to harass him. (Motion, p. 7: 6.) Without further explication as to why Carter believes this will occur or citation to authority in support, the Court declines to consider the merits of this conclusory statement.

C. Deposition Subpoena to Las Encinas

The operative FAC alleges that Carter suffered a traumatic brain injury and a result, Carter can only “work half the hours he used to” (FAC ¶¶ 20, 50, 57) and “[t]here is a possibility Carter will never be able to recover the mental stamina he had before the incident.” (FAC ¶ 22.) Monica seeks evidence to support or disprove this allegation. The subpoena is an effort to obtain such information. It seeks “[a]ny and all documents and records, including but not limited to, payroll, personnel, employment and wage records, including pre-employment records, physical examinations, work absence records, incident reports, vacation records, loss of earnings records, disciplinary records, internal investigation records, employee progress records, all claims under health, accident or hospitalization insurance coverage.”  (Gillick Decl., Exh. 2, p. 24.)

Carter seeks to modify the subpoena on two grounds: (1) the records sought are not relevant and (2) disclosure of all employment records would violate his privacy. Carter seeks to modify the subpoena to only include (1) payroll records and (2) loss of earning records.

i. Relevance

As pleaded, all of Carter’s causes of action require proof to substantiate he suffered harm. He alleges that he was not able to work as much as he did previously, and that he suffered a loss of mental acuity. (Complaint ¶¶ 20,22.) The employment records Monica is seeking from Las Encinas are highly relevant to prove or disprove this alleged harm, as well as the extent of it. (Davis v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1014.)

As to the cross-complaint, none of Monica’s causes of action require proof that Carter worked less as a result of a separate incident of alleged spousal abuse. Her causes of action for dependent adult abuse, battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress do not relate to the harms Carter alleges he suffered as a result of Monica hitting him with a skateboard on February 23, 2021.

ii. Privacy

The subpoena seeks employment records, which on balance, are a type of protected personal information. (Cal. Const. Art. 1 §1.) However, as Carter has placed his employment and ability to work in controversy by alleging he was not able to work as a result of the injuries he sustained and that he is only working half the amount he used to, the records are discoverable. (Moskowitz v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 857.)

Accordingly, the motion to modify the subpoena is denied.

D. Sanctions

          Monica requests sanctions for the cost of having to oppose the motion. The Court finds that the motions to quash were made in bad faith, as the records sought are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, appropriately limited in scope; and there were no viable claims of privilege or harassment.

The declaration of Martin R. Berman, counsel for Monica, indicates that he has spent 7.5 hours opposing the motions and anticipates 1.5 hours spent on the court appearance for these motions at $500.00/hour. (Berman Decl. ¶ 7.) 7.5 hours appears  excessive for preparing one opposition. The Court will permit Monica to recover 3 hours of work preparing the opposition at $500 an hour, as Monica opposed all three in one opposition, and 1.5 hours to attend the hearing at $500.00/hour, for a total of 4.5 hours, or $2,250 total.

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          Carter’s motion to quash the subpoena served on Apex Recovery is DENIED. Carter’s motion to quash the subpoena served on Southern California Recovery Center is DENIED. Carter’s motion to modify the subpoena served on Las Encinas Hospital is DENIED. Carter is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,250.00 to Monica within 20 days of notice of this order.

Monica is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT