Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2022-01254393, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

The Motion by Defendant Ahmad Hajj, M.D. (“Defendant”) to Compel Plaintiff Hassan Kassem (“Plaintiff”) to provide Further Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED in part, as set forth below.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to special interrogatories nos. 1, 2 and 3. These interrogatories asked Plaintiff to: [no. 1] IDENTIFY each and every health-care provider who or which provided MEDICAL CARE to you for any reason during the past fifteen (15) years up to the present; [no. 2] Set forth the dates on which you received MEDICAL CARE from each health-care provider identified in your response to Special Interrogatory No. 1; [no. 3] State each condition/reason for which MEDICAL CARE was rendered by each health-care provider identified in your response to Special Interrogatory No. 1.

Although Plaintiff identified some health care providers in his response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.4, which he referred to in his responses, Plaintiff refused to provide any of the requested information for healthcare providers and medical care that were not related to the conditions that he alleges caused his right leg injury.

At this juncture, the Court is not faced with the question of whether Plaintiff’s medical records should be produced. Rather, these interrogatories merely seek the identity of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, the dates on which he received medical care from them, and the condition/reason for the medical care. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Plaintiff has a right to privacy in his medical records and history, but this right is not absolute. Moreover, although medical records of “unrelated” conditions generally are not discoverable, records of “unrelated” conditions may be discoverable, on a showing of good cause, “if the condition is relevant to the issue of proximate causation.” (Cal. Prac. Guide Pers. Inj.  at ¶ 6:36.2, citing Evid. Code § 999; Slagle v. Sup.Ct. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314-1315.)

“Statutes relating to discovery procedures should be liberally construed in favor of disclosure.” (Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314 [denying writ petition to order trial court to grant his motion to quash subpoena for medical records].) In balancing Plaintiff’s interest in his “medical history” against Defendant’s right to discovery, the Court finds the discovery should be allowed. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38 [court must balance whether the invasion of the privacy interest is justified by a competing interest].)  Defendant has explained why this information is necessary. Specifically, “Plaintiff's medical records also indicate that Plaintiff suffered an injury to his shin area a few days prior to the subject hospitalization. Plaintiff has now claimed that he has suffered permanent injuries to his right leg.” (Mot. at 6.) Plaintiff seems to believe that the injuries to his right leg were caused solely by Defendants’ negligent diagnosis and treatment of his compartment injury. However, Defendant is not required to accept Plaintiff’s theory. Unless the discovery is permitted, Defendant cannot determine what other medical conditions may have proximately caused the injuries to Plaintiff’s right leg.

Defendant agreed to limit its requests in two ways: (1) to limit the time period to the past 10 years, instead of 15 years, and (2) to exclude any mental health treatment.

The Court finds the second limitation (excluding mental health treatment) reasonable, but finds the proposed 10-year time period excessive and unreasonable.  The Court finds 5 years to be reasonable. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses within 15 days, subject to these limitations.

In connection with the Motion, Defendant is awarded $1,230 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.300.) The sanctions are payable within 30 days to Defendant’s counsel, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling.