Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00910, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV00910 Hearing Date: September 18, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 9/18/23
TRIAL DATE: 4/22/24
Case 22CHCV00910
MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENAS
Motion filed on 6/2/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Blanca Fajardo
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The request to quash deposition subpoenas
is granted. The request for sanctions is
denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of an incident that occurred on
2/15/22 wherein Plaintiff Blanca Fajardo (Plaintiff) claims that she “was
seriously injured when the bus driver negligently drove off, before Plaintiff
was safely seated.” (See
Complaint ¶Prem.L-1). As a result, on
10/18/22, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant) for Premises Liability. On 5/4/23, Defendant answered Plaintiff’s
complaint.
On 5/12/23, Defendant issued four subpoenas to the Los
Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD), Providence St. Joseph Medical Center
(Medical Records), Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Billing Records) and
Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (Radiological Records) for production on
6/9/23. (Bagdassarian Decl. ¶¶2-3,
Ex.A-D).
The LAFD subpoena seeks:
“Any and all paramedic and/or
ambulance records and itemized statements of the billing charges pertaining to
the care, treatment, and examination of plaintiff. The incident occurred at Van
Nuys and Laurel Canyon around 12:15 p.m. but the Plaintiff was picked up at
Valley Village, CA at approximately 12:30 p.m.”
The St. Joseph Medical Center (Medical Records) subpoena
seeks:
“All documents and records
pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of the Plaintiff including,
all office reports and notes, emergency room charts and notes, inpatient and
outpatient charts, radiological reports and test results from the first date of
treatment to and including the present.”
The St. Joseph Medical Center (Billing Records) subpoena seeks:
“All itemized statements of the
billing charges, statement of billing records, all Medicare, Medi-Cal, payment
history, insurance payments and adjustments pertaining to the care, treatment
and examination of the Plaintiff from the first date of treatment to and
including the present.”
The St. Joseph Medical Center (Radiological Records) subpoena
seeks:
“All Radiology Images including,
X-Ray Films/CD, CAT Scan Films/CD and MRI’s Films/CD taken pertaining to the
care, treatment and examination of the Plaintiff from the first date of
treatment to and including the present.”
Id.
Finding the subpoenas to be overbroad, Plaintiff’s
counsel communicated with defense counsel regarding the scope of the
subpoenas. During that process,
Defendant agreed to limit the subpoenas to 10 years and exclude mental health
records and records pertaining to sexually transmitted diseases. (Bagdassarian Decl. ¶¶4-6, Ex.E; Nunez Decl.
¶¶4-5). Plaintiff was not satisfied with
the proposal; therefore, on 6/2/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant
motion seeking an order quashing four subpoenas served by Defendant Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its
counsel of record, Eitan Yehoshua of Ashour Yehoshua APC, in the amount of
$2,060.00. Defendant has opposed the
motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
CCP 1987.1(a) provides:
“If 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. In addition, the court
may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from
unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the
right of privacy of the person.”
In a personal injury action, discovery is permitted with
regard to the physical conditions the patient-litigant has placed in
issue. See Britt (1978) 20
C3d 844, 863-864; Vinson (1987) 43 C3d 833, 842; Lantz (1994) 28
CA4th 1839, 1854-1855, 1857; Heller (1994) 8 C4th 30, 43, 55. Accordingly, “Plaintiff does not dispute that
Defendant may seeking records regarding the body parts at issue.” (See Motion, p.10:20-21).
The problem here is that neither Plaintiff nor Defendant
has informed the Court exactly which of Plaintiff’s body parts are at issue in
this case. Plaintiff’s complaint merely
alleges that Plaintiff “was seriously injured” as a result of the
incident. (Complaint ¶Prem.L-1). The instant motion also gives no indication
as to what specific parts of Plaintiff’s body are at issue. (See Motion, generally). Similarly, while the opposition indicates
that Plaintiff provided responses to Defendant’s initial discovery requests on
6/12/23 which Defendant claims “make it evident to us what injuries Plaintiff
is claiming,” Defendant does not specify what those injuries are nor provide
copies of Plaintiff’s discovery responses.
(See Opposition, p.3:4-7; Nunez Decl. ¶6). Rather, Defendant vaguely states that “[a]s
of June 12, 2023, Plaintiff is asserting claims for physical injuries,
emotional distress, and pain and suffering.”
(Opposition, p.3:8-10; Nunez Decl. ¶8).
Based on such, Defendant indicates that it is willing to limit the
records sought to 10 years and exclude any of Plaintiff’s gynecological and/or
mental health records. (Opposition,
p.5:27-p.6:1). However, the declaration
in support of the opposition indicates that Defendant is willing to exclude
mental health records, records pertaining to sexually transmitted diseases and
any records over 10 years old. (Nunez
Decl. ¶9). The Court notes that while
gynecological records and records pertaining to sexually transmitted diseases
may overlap, they are not necessarily the same.
While it is true that Defendant has the right to obtain
information about any injuries, conditions, or problems that might have
contributed to the injuries claimed by Plaintiff, neither party has provided
the Court with sufficient information to determine what injuries Plaintiff is
actually claiming in this action.
As such, Defendant has failed to meet its burden of
establishing all of the following: (1) the information/records sought are
directly relevant to the issues in this case; (2) there is “a compelling need
for discovery, and that compelling need [is] so strong as to outweigh the
privacy right when these two competing interests are carefully balanced;” (3)
the scope is narrowly circumscribed and by the least intrusive manner; and (4)
the information is not available from other sources or by less intrusive means. Lantz (1994) 28 CA4th 1839, 1853-1854.
However, the Court notes that if Plaintiff’s discovery
responses (which, as noted above, have not been provided to the Court) generally
state that Plaintiff is claiming physical injuries, without specifying which
body parts Plaintiff claims were injured as a result of the incident which is
the subject of this action, Defendant would be entitled to explore injuries to
any parts of Plaintiff’s body within the last 10 years in order to properly
prepare a defense to this action.
The subject subpoenas contain no time limitation and
Defendant concedes that they should be limited to 10 years. Additionally, the time period for the subpoena
issued to the LAFD is unclear. It seems
that the subpoena may have been intended to be limited to the date of the
incident based on the inclusion of where the incident occurred, the time of the
incident and where and when Plaintiff was picked-up; however, no specific date
is set forth. (Bagdassarian Decl.,
Ex.A). Based on the foregoing, the Court
finds the subpoenas to be overbroad as to time.
Additionally, since Defendant is willing to exclude gynecological
records and mental health records, the scope of the subpoenas is also
overbroad.
Although the Court is quashing the subject subpoenas, it
finds that sanctions against Defendant and its counsel are not warranted. The Court finds that Defendant acted with
substantial justification and did not misuse the discovery process or act in
bad faith. CCP 1987.2(a); CCP
2024.010(b); CCP 2023.030(a).
The Court further notes that Plaintiff failed to give
clear notice of the relief sought. CRC
3.1110(a) provides that “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening
paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of
the order.” Here, the opening paragraph
of the notice of motion indicates that Plaintiff is seeking “an order quashing
three subpoenas for [sic] served by Defendant the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (‘Defendant’)” when actually four
subpoenas are at issue. (See
Notice of Motion, p.2:4-6).
Additionally, the notice of motion never specifies exactly which
subpoenas are at issue. The notice also
claims that in addition to Plaintiff’s privacy rights, the subpoenas also
violate third parties’ privacy rights.
(Notice of Motion, p.2:10-11).
However, other than concluding that the subpoenas violate third-parties
privacy rights, Plaintiff’s points and authorities fail to make any argument as
to how any third-party’s privacy rights are at issue/violated by the subpoenas
other than claiming they require disclosure of “family medical history.” (See
Motion, Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p.6:8-12, p.7:13-15).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s request to quash the subpoenas is
granted. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are
denied.