Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV09453, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09453    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 1, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Subpoena for Business Records

Moving Party: Plaintiff Brittney Crawford

Responding Party: None

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA IS GRANTED.

OPTUM, INC. IS ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

CCP § 1987.1 provides, “[i]f 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.”

            Plaintiff moves to enforce a subpoena served on third-party Optum, Inc. on September 28, 2022. The subpoena seeks,

1. All documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”) that relate to or refer to PLAINTIFF’s requests in 2020 and 2021 for a specialist to perform liposuction for her lipedema. These documents should include but not be limited to: a) PLAINTIFF’s medical records related to or referring to her requests; b) all documents and ESI that evidence YOUR consideration of PLAINTIFF’s requests; c) all communications by and among YOUR personnel regarding or relating to PLAINTIFF’s requests; and d) all YOUR communications with third parties regarding or relating to PLAINTIFF’s requests, including without limitation with ANTHEM, Dr. Dena Amr, Dr. Ketan Patel, Dr. Thuan Nguyen, Dr. Dung Nguyen, Dr. Manish Champaneria, Dr. Tuan Tran, Dr. Farbod Esmailian, and/or Dr. Richard Guerrero.

2. The contract or contracts between YOU and ANTHEM in effect in 2020 and/or 2021 that applied to PLAINTIFF’s coverage with ANTHEM.

3. Any Medical Policy or Policies made available to you by ANTHEM, in effect in 2020 and/or 2021, that address whether liposuction is a covered service under ANTHEM contracts.

4. Any guidelines or criteria provided to YOU by ANTHEM, in effect in 2020 and/or 2021, for deciding when out-of-network specialists should be authorized under the “Select HMO Plan.”

            Plaintiff asserts that Optum has produced billing records and medical records but has not produced other responsive documents. Plaintiff alleges Optum wrongfully refused to authorize a lipedema surgery for Plaintiff. The records are relevant and discoverable. Neither Optum nor Defendant have opposed this motion.

            Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.