Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV04061, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04061    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: I

The matter is here on a motion to quash a business records subpoena.

The court will inquire as to the meet and confer.  Plaintiff stated that it attempted to meet and confer and asked that the subpoena’s scope be restricted to matters that the plaintiff has actually tendered rather than “all” medical records albeit for a limited period.  According to plaintiff, defendant would not budge, but part of the problem is that the scheduled meet and confer was cancelled by plaintiff, so there has not been an actual voice-to-voice discussion.  Plaintiff contends that defendant is going on a “fishing expedition,” which is not allowed into medical records that are protected by both privilege and privacy.

The court just cannot tell.  If, as plaintiff suggests, defendant is seeking medical records for issues having nothing to do with the case and refuses to modify the subpoena, then the court would view this as defendant taking an “all or nothing” position and the court will rule accordingly.  On the other hand, it could be that given the limited scope of the subpoena as to time, it really is the case that all of the medical records would go toward the issue tendered in this case, in which case plaintiff is just running out the clock.  What does appear to be the case is that no one is speaking to anyone.

The court’s inclination is to have the parties engage in a good faith meet and confer right now.  Defendant is entitled to medical records concerning the injuries plaintiff alleges defendant caused and that have been tendered in this case including records that post-date the incident.  Plaintiff is entitled to protect medical records beyond that scope.  This is not rocket science and the parties ought to be able to put this to bed.  The court will call the case at the end of the calendar to see how the meet and confer went.  The court orders that the meet and confer be with counsel who are authorized to resolve this issue according to the other side’s most recent position without obtaining further authority.  That does not mean that the authority must be exercised; it only means that the attorney engaging in the discussion needs to have that authority so that a deal can be cut. In the meantime, the matter will be continued until tomorrow, February 23, 2024, at 9:00 am.  No further briefing will be allowed.  Lead counsel for both parties are to attend the hearing in person.  They may not attend by Court Connect unless they have resolved the issue.