Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02586, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV02586 Hearing Date: March 6, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 3/6/25
TRIAL DATE: 9/15/25
Case #23CHCV02586
MOTION TO COMPEL
COMPLIANCE WITH MEDICAL RECORD SUBPOENA
Motion filed on 11/15/24.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Frankie Florez
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Larry Tran and Cirena Torres
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order to compel
compliance with the medical record subpoena served on Santa Clarita Mental
Health Center.
RULING: The motion is granted.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a dispute between neighboring
property owners regarding trees.
Plaintiffs Larry Tran and Cirena Torres (Plaintiffs) contend that
neighboring property owner, Defendant Frankie Florez (Florez) improperly
cut/damaged trees on their property, has defamed them with regard to the tree
situation, etc.
Plaintiff Larry Tran (Tran) is making a claim for
emotional distress and has identified Santa Clarita Mental Health Center as a
location where he received treatment for such injuries. (See Wainfeld Decl., Ex.B). On 10/18/24, Florez served Notices to
Consumer on Tran and subpoenas on Santa Clarita Mental Health Center for the
production of:
“Documents and medical records and
reports, and writings, including, but not limited to, office, emergency room,
inpatient, outpatient, hospital charts and records, including electronically
stored documents and files; radiology materials and films, X-rays, MRIs, and CT
scans (a completed breakdown from your film library must be provided prior to
production of requested films), pertaining to the care, treatment, and
examination of Larry Tran, DOB 04/15/1983, SSN: UNKNOWN, from 2019 to the
present.”
and
“Itemized statements of the billing
charges, including insurance billing and records, billing records, explanation
of benefits (EOBs), billing off-sets, write-offs, and records of payment,
amounts paid, and amounts adjusted, pertaining to the care, treatment, and
examination of Larry Tran, DOB: 04/15/1983, SSN: UNKNOWN, from 2019 to the
present.”
(See Wainfeld Decl., Ex.A).
The date of production was 11/20/24. Id.
On or about 11/3/24, Plaintiffs served objections to the subpoenas. (Wainfeld Decl., Ex.C). After meet and confer efforts failed to
resolve the issues regarding the subpoenas, on 11/15/24, Florez filed and
served the instant motion seeking an order to compel compliance with the
medical record subpoena served on Santa Clarita Mental Health Center. Plaintiffs have opposed the motion and Florez
has filed a reply to the opposition.
On 12/5/24, Plaintiffs filed a motion to quash or limit
the same subpoenas. No proof of service
is attached to the motion to quash nor has a separate proof of service for the
motion been filed. Florez has not
opposed or otherwise responded to the motion to quash.
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.”
Tran has placed his mental/emotional health at issue in
this action by claiming that he suffered emotional distress as a result of
Florez’s conduct and states that he received treatment for such injuries at
Santa Claria Mental Health Center. (See
First Amended Complaint, generally; Wainfeld Decl., Ex.B). Tran does not dispute that Florez is entitled
to certain records, but claims that the subpoenas are overbroad as to time and
scope.
In the opposition, Tran indicates that he is willing to
compromise at 5 years with disclosures limited to information directly relevant
to this action. (See Opposition,
p.7:14-15). In the motion, Florez
indicates that he has agreed to limit the subpoena to 5 years as reflected in
the subpoena. (See Motion, p.2:2-3;
Wainfeld Decl. ¶6). Confusingly, in the
reply, Florez, claims that 7 years is a reasonable time period to obtain the
mental health records. (See
Reply, p.2:6-8).
While individuals have a right to privacy in their
medical and psychological records, that right is not absolute when they place
their medical and/or psychological health at issue in an action. See Britt (1978) 20 C3d 844, 862-863;
Davis (1992) 7 CA4th 1008, 1017.
Contrary to the implication in the opposition, the
subpoena does not seek all of Tran’s medical records without redaction. (See Opposition, p.15:9-10). Rather, the subpoena was issued to a mental
health center which presumably only has records pertaining to Plaintiff’s
mental health and is limited to records from 2019 (approximately 4 ½ years
before this action was filed on 8/28/23) to the present. Plaintiffs claim that Florez is only entitled
to psychotherapy notes “pertinent to the issues at hand” without specifying
what those issues are in the opposition to the motion. (See Opposition, p.15:12-15,
p.15:21-23). During meet and confer
efforts, Tran contended that “[r]elevant records would include:
1 . The identities of the parties
such as myself, Frankie Florez, and Kings Tree Service in this matter.
2. The issues in this matter:
a. trespass,
b. cutting of trees or timber on my
property and property line,
c. dumping of tree material,
d. defamation by Defendants in this
matter [Defendants Frankie Florez, and Kings Tree Service], e. harassment by
Defendants in this matter,
f. criminal acts by Defendants in
this matter,
g. intentional or negligent acts in
this matter,
h. Invasion of privacy by
Defendants in this matter,
i. involvement of Los Angeles
County Sheriff in this matter,
j . involvement of Los Angeles Fire
Department in this matter,
k. involvement of third parties in
this matter.
3. The harm to Plaintiffs Larry
Tran such as emotional distress, including suffering, anguish, fright, horror,
nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame, in this
matter."
(See Wainfeld Decl., Ex.D).
Based on Tran’s claim that he suffered emotional distress
damages and received treatment for same as a result of the facts giving rise to
this action, the Court finds that Florez is entitled to obtain the records
requested from Santa Clarita Mental Health Center from 2019 to the present. See Davis, supra at
1015-1016. Additionally, the Court finds
that the other limitations requested by Plaintiff are unreasonable and
unwarranted. It would be overly
burdensome, if not impossible, to require the deponent to sift through Tran’s
records to determine which are directly relevant based on the criteria set
forth in Tran’s above quoted email. Similarly,
even if certain records do not directly implicate the issues set forth in
Tran’s email, they could relate to his claim for emotional distress (i.e., are
there other unrelated causes of Tran’s claimed emotional distress at or around
the time of the incidents giving rise to this case?).
Plaintiffs’ claim that the subpoena itself is defective
because it was not issued by the clerk or judge is without merit.
Plaintiffs’ motion to quash the same subpoenas is
procedurally defective in that there is no proof of service and no response to
the motion from Florez to cure the defect in notice. Additionally, the motion is untimely in that
it was filed after the date set for production.
See CCP 1985.3(g). As
such, to the extent the motion to quash is not rendered moot by the ruling on
the motion to compel compliance, it would be denied.
CONCLUSION
The motion to compel compliance is granted. However, the Court finds that the production
of any such records shall be kept confidential and used only for purposes of
this action.
The Motion to Quash filed by Plaintiffs on 12/5/24 is placed
off calendar.