Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Vu v. Nguyen, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Hai Manh Vu’s Motion to Quash Subpoena

Plaintiff Hai Manh Vu moves to quash a subpoena for production of business records served by defendant Cindy Nguyen to Kaiser Permanente/Southern California.  For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff alleges plaintiff sustained injuries to the back, shoulders, left hip, and left hand in the April 16, 2021 motor vehicle collision from which this case arose.

The subpoena seeks records for plaintiff as follows:  “Complete medical records from 4/16/2011 to present including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically: documents, correspondence from the patient or patient’s attorney, intake forms, medical reports, doctor’s entries, nurse’s notes, medication administration records, office notes, progress reports, cardiology reports, radiology reports, x-ray reports, MRI reports, CT reports, myelogram reports, lab reports, pathology reports, monitor strips, physical therapy records, occupational therapy records, case history, emergency records, outpatient records, diagnosis and prognosis documentation, admit and discharge records, and notation(s) on any file folder.  All emails between physicians and the patient regarding physical complaints, symptoms, and treatment, including secure messages.”  The subpoena further states that the records shall include “any and all records from 4/16/2011 to present from Garden Grove, CA.”  Plaintiff served objections to the subpoena.

The subpoena is temporally and substantively overbroad.  Defendant has not provided any evidence justifying the 12-year period covered by the subpoena (e.g., evidence plaintiff suffered potentially relevant prior injuries in that period).  Defendant also has not provided any evidence justifying its request for all of plaintiff’s medical records for that 12-year period.  The subpoenaed party’s inability or unwillingness to tailor its document production to relevant categories of documents does not warrant production of all of plaintiff’s medical records for a 12-year period, particularly where the subpoenaed party invited defendant to resubmit its subpoena to request records “limited to a date range, provider name(s), and department type(s).”  Ferozy Decl. Ex. C.  Plaintiff proposed that plaintiff review the records first; defendant rejected that proposal apparently for fear plaintiff would withhold relevant documents from production or would redact documents.  Defendant has provided no evidence the parties could not address that issue by means of, e.g., an appropriate log, and no evidence the issue could not be addressed by the court if necessary.

Plaintiff to give notice.