Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV09453, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09453    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 17, 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.

MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC. IS ORDERED TO PRODUCE UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS 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 Maximus Federal Services, Inc. on February 21, 2023.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed in bad faith to authorize out-of-network surgery for Plaintiff. Maximus conducted an Independent Medical Review (“IMR”) for Defendant; Defendant has stated it intends to rely on the findings made by Maximus. Plaintiff served a subpoena on Maximus seeking documents relating to the IMR, including documents showing the identity and qualifications of the person who conducted the review. Plaintiff asserts Maximus produced responsive documents but redacted the identity of the reviewer and the reviewer’s qualifications. Plaintiff seeks unredacted documents so she may depose the reviewer.

The IMR and the identity and qualifications of the reviewer are plainly relevant. Plaintiff is entitled to this discovery.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.