Judge Martha K. Gooding, Case 21-01230089 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 21-01230089, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Compel Production

2) Motion to Compel Production

3) Motion to Quash

4) Motion to Quash

(1)MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

The Motion by Plaintiff Jane HT Doe (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant Dr. Frederic H. Corbin (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to her requests for production of documents is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below.

Where a party moves to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, section 2031.310(b)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 8:1495.6.

Declarations are generally used to show good cause, and they must contain specific facts and not mere conclusions. Id. at 8:1495.7. If the moving party demonstrates good cause, then the opposing party must justify any objections. (Kirkland v Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

The following two requests are at issue.

3. ALL DOCUMENTS that EVIDENCE formal OR informal complaints, including SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, from ANY source, including but not limited to ALL patients AND ALL EMPLOYEES, RELATING TO YOU.

Defendant objected to this request on the ground that it is “overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, seeks information that may be protected by HIPAA, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is subject to confidentiality.”

Plaintiff argues that documents responsive to this request are relevant to her claims against Defendant Corbin for sexual misconduct.

The Court finds that the wording of the request is overbroad in scope as it is not limited to complaints of sexual misconduct, as Plaintiff argues. Rather it requests all complaints from all patients and all employees relating to Defendant. The phrase “including sexual misconduct” is not limited to complaints of sexual misconduct.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the discovery of every complaint on any subject. As Defendant points out, responsive documents could include, for example, a patient’s medical chart in which the patient reports any type of dissatisfaction with his/her appearance following cosmetic surgery, or how long the patient had to wait in the waiting room.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as to this request.

27. To the extent not encompassed by prior requests, ALL formal OR informal complaints from anyone, including not but not limited to patients, RELATING TO unprofessional OR inappropriate conduct by ANY MEDICAL PRACTICE EMPLOYEE from 1995 to the present.

Defendant responded: “None other than what is contained in the criminal complaint by plaintiff and J.S.”

Defendant’s response does not constitute a proper statement of compliance.

An agreement to comply with a document demand must state whether the responding party will be complying "in whole or in part." (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.220.) In addition, the response must indicate whether any documents are being withheld based on an asserted objection. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.240(b)). When agreeing to produce documents to a request, the responding party must also identify which documents are responsive to which request. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.280(a).)

Also, Plaintiff contends that the response is demonstrably false, because during Corbin testified in his deposition that J.S. brought a civil claim against him and that she has alleged Defendant Corbin sexually abused her during the course of her medical treatment with him. Further, Defendant Corbin testified that the law firm of Doyle, Shaffer and McMahon represented him in this matter.

The Court finds that a further response is warranted and grants the motion as to this request.

Defendant is ordered to serve a further Code-compliant response to No. 27 within 21 days of this ruling.

(1)MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

Plaintiff’s Motion to compel Defendant Frederic H. Corbin, M.D., APC to serve further responses to her requests for production of documents is denied.

When a party moves to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, CCP section 2031.310(b)(1) requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 8:1495.6.

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further response to Request No. 6 which states: To the extent not encompassed by prior requests, ALL DOCUMENTS that EVIDENCE formal OR informal complaints from ANY source, including but not limited to patients AND EMPLOYEES, RELATING TO CORBIN.

Defendant objected to this request on the grounds that it is “overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, seeks information that may be protected by HIPAA, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Plaintiff contends she is not required to specify what specific types of complaints she is seeking through these discovery responses. But, there are limits to discovery.

CCP section 2017.010 provides (emphasis added):

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, 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. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.

As Defendant points out, responsive documents to this very broad request would include, for example, a patient’s medical chart in which the patient reports any type of dissatisfaction with his/her appearance following cosmetic surgery, or how long the patient had to wait in the waiting room. Such documents are not relevant to the subject matter or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the production of all documents related to all complaints as to Defendant’s medical practice.

The Motion is denied.

(2)MOTION TO QUASH

The Motion Defendants Dr. Frederic H. Corbin and Frederic H. Corbin, M.D., APC to quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena served on third-party J.S. is continued to July 17, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.

Plaintiff served the Opposition to the Motion on Defendants electronically. However, the sender’s email address was not listed. Proof of electronic service must include the “electronic service address and the residence or business address of the person making the electronic service.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013b(b)(1).)

Given that no reply was filed, the Court is unable to verify proper notice of Plaintiff’s Opposition.

As a result, Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended proof of service of the Opposition that complies with the California Rules of Court and Code of Civil Procedure, no later than 7 court days before the continued hearing date.

(4)MOTION TO QUASH

Plaintiff’s Motion to quash the subpoenas issued by Defendants Dr. Frederic H. Corbin and Frederic H. Corbin, M.D., APC to Tier Wellness, Southland Neurologic Associates, Optumcare Medical Group, and Terry J. Dubrow M.D. F.A.C.S was heard on 5/15/23.

The Court’s Minute Order dated 5/17/23, which is incorporated herein, granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. The Court continued the hearing solely on the issue of whether Plaintiff should be allowed a “first look” at the records to redact irrelevant information.

Plaintiff bases her request on CCP section 2017.220, which provides:

“In any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator shall establish specific facts showing that there is good cause for that discovery and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This showing shall be made by a noticed motion, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 and shall not be made or considered by the court at an ex parte hearing.” (Emphasis added.)

The subpoenas at issue here seek all medical records and billing records related to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s medical records are relevant here, given that she alleges she has suffered from “emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear” as a result of Defendants’ conduct, and “has been hurt in her health, strength and activity,” and “has sustained permanent and continuing injury to her nervous system and person…” (Complaint, ¶¶ 32, 34.)

There is nothing that suggests Defendants are pursuing discovery concerning Plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the individual defendant here. which is the focus of section 2017.220. Nor has there been any showing that the records may contain any evidence of the Plaintiff’s sexual history that is unrelated to Defendants’ alleged misconduct.

As a result, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for a “first look” at the medical records.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.