Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV39598, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39598    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

              Plaintiff Martina A. Silas sued defendants Ace Hardware Corporation and The Grommet (collectively, “Defendants”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained from a pair of noise cancelling earplugs.  Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoenas Defendants served on (1) East Valley ENT; (2) House Ear Institute; (3) Towers Audiology; (4) Dr. Sharzad Cohen; and (5) AMC Pharmacy (collectively, “Deponents”).  Defendants have not filed an opposition to the motion.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Under Evidence Code section 451, “[j]udicial notice shall be taken of the following: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution…(f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. ” (Evid. Code, § 451, subds. (a), (f).)

Under Evidence Code section 452, “[j]udicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state. (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States (d) Record of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States…(g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdictions of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capably of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (a)-(d), (g), (h).)

The Court “shall take notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.” (Evid. Code, § 453.)

Here, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice regarding Nos. 3a-d per Evidence Code sections 452 and 453. The Court notes, however, that while the existence of any document in a court file may be judicially noticed, the truth of the matters asserted in such documents is not necessarily subject to judicial notice. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-1569.) “A court cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements just because they are part of a court record or file.” (Bach v. McNelis (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 864-865 [emphasis original].)  The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice regarding Nos. 3e-f.

ANALYSIS

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  In ruling on a motion to quash, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

Current discovery standards hold that, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,[1] that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 (hereafter, Board of Nursing).)  “To meet this [test], a party seeking to compel [the] production of records . . . must articulate specific facts justifying the discovery sought; it may not rely on mere generalities.”  (Ibid.; see Johnson v. Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 829, 837 [finding that a subpoena was “insufficient” to compel production because it was “based wholly on the [party’s] alleged information and belief without any statement of supporting facts”].)  However, “[e]ven if information is otherwise discoverable, it may be protected by a constitutional or statutory privilege[,] [including] the right to privacy . . . .”  (Board of Nursing, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 1039.) 

            “The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy.  Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern.  .  .  .  The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.^[2]  The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.  A court must then balance these competing considerations.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [cleaned up].)

            “Legally recognized privacy interests [include] interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’) .  .  .  .”  (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 (hereafter, Hill).)  “A particular class of information is [sensitive or confidential] when well-established social norms recognize the need to maximize individual control over its dissemination and use to prevent unjustified embarrassment or indignity.”  (Ibid.) 

            Here, the subpoenas seek all medical and billing records related to the treatment and care of Plaintiff, without limitation by body part, from January 1, 2007, to the present date.  (Exhibits in Support of Motion, Exhibits 4-8.)  Plaintiff argues the subpoenas are overbroad and seek information protected by constitutional right to privacy and that is not otherwise relevant to the issues in this litigation.

            Defendants have not opposed the motion and has therefore failed to publish what Plaintiff has stated in her discovery responses that would warrant compliance with the subpoenas as crafted.  Without such information, the Court cannot determine that the subject subpoenas are narrowly tailored to the specific issues Plaintiff has brought before the Court.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court finds Plaintiff has carried her threshold burden of establishing a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonably expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.  Consequently, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoenas Plaintiff served on Deponents, and orders said subpoenas quashed.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.