Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 20STCV17129, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV17129 Hearing Date: September 9, 2022 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Lebron, v. Robinson, et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV17129
MOTION: Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Documents
HEARING DATE: 9/9/2022
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides in part:
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.
California’s standard for discovery is broad: “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP, § 2017.010.) Courts construe the right to discovery liberally to permit discovery whenever possible. (Williams v. Superior Court (1997) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) One of the purposes of the discovery is “to educate the parties concerning their claims and defenses so as to encourage settlements and to expedite and facilitate trial.” (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107.)
Analysis
This action concerns personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident where Defendant made a left turn into Plaintiff’s vehicle at an intersection. Notably, Plaintiff alleges general damages, medical and incidental damages, and loss of future earnings. Plaintiff moves to quash certain subpoenas issued by Defendant seeking medical records, billing records, and X-ray/films related to Plaintiff’s treatment from four facilities. (Agarwal Decl., Ex. A.) The subpoenas seek such records from August 21, 2019, to the present.
“The 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 552, citations omitted.) If there is a serious invasion of a constitutional right to privacy, the party seeking the evidence must establish that the information sought is not only essential and directly relevant, but also that this information could not be discovered through less intrusive means. (Id.) The broad "relevancy to the subject matter" standard is not enough. The court must be convinced the information is essential to determining the truth of the matters in dispute. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.)
Otherwise, whether the discovery infringes a less serious invasion is resolved by a simple balancing test. (Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 594-595.) The discovery's relevance to the subject matter of the pending dispute and whether the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is balanced against the corporate right of privacy. (Ibid.) Doubts about relevance generally are resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Ibid.)
Litigants have a constitutionally protected right to privacy in their medical records. (Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) However, there is an implicit waiver of a plaintiff’s constitutional rights to privacy for medical records directly relevant to a plaintiff’s claim. By filing a personal injury action plaintiffs place in issue their past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon. All medical and/or psychological records that are directly related to the claimed injuries are discoverable. (Evidence Code, §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 862-864.)
Plaintiff contends that her rights to privacy will be violated unless these subpoenas be limited to only the parts of the body that she put at issue. However, Plaintiff provides no authority that would suggest such an arbitrary limitation. The sought records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s past and present physical condition. They are also limited in time starting from the date of the incident to the present. Moreover, Plaintiff testified that she only saw these medical professionals for injuries related to the present case. As such, these records are discoverable. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Sanctions are discretionary. Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides:
(a) Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or 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.
(Emphasis Added.) The above discussion demonstrates that the motion was made in bad faith and without substantial justification. Thus, the Court awards Defendants sanctions in the reduced and reasonable amount of $1,000.00, payable within 30 days.