Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV19446, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19446    Hearing Date: October 5, 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

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Calvin Lawson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Carolyn Yamaoka and Richard Olsonoski (“Defendants”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident.  Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories (see Decl. Leaton, Ex. A) and deposition testimony (see Decl. Leaton, Ex. B at pp. 17-18, 34-37) indicate that he received treatment from health care providers at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) shortly after the accident for neck and back pain attributed to the subject car accident. Defendants attempted to obtain Plaintiff’s authorization to obtain the records from the VA, and Plaintiff has refused. 

            At this time, Defendants move to compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization for the release of his medical records.  Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion and Defendants have replied to the opposition. 

ANALYSIS

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 subd. (b), “[a] party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.  However, Defendants fail to cite any relevant California authority for the proposition that the Court can compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization for the release of medical pursuant to Section 2031.010 or any other California statutory provision.  The trial court does not have the power to create additional methods of discovery.  (See San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405.)

Defendants rely on Miranda v. 21st Century Ins, Co.  Yet, in Miranda, a case concerning an uninsured motorist’s claim, the trial court granted an unopposed motion to compel plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of medical records.  (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins, Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 918-919.)  The plaintiff refused to sign the authorization, and the trial court ultimately granted the motion to dismiss.  (Ibid.)  On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered only whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss the case.  (Id. at pp. 919-920.)  The dismissal was affirmed but, in a footnote, the Court of Appeal expressed skepticism as to the method of discovery.  (See id. at p. 918, fn.2.)  More important, the issue of whether a trial court may compel the signing of an authorization for the release of health care records was not squarely before the Court of Appeal.  The three issues on appeal were whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over discovery disputes in uninsured motorist arbitrations, whether the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff and whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the arbitration.  Thus, Miranda is not dispositive.  (See, e.g., FNB Mortg. Corp. v. Pacific General Group (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1132 [“Language used in any opinion is of course to be understood in light of the facts and the issue before the court, and an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered”].) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Because Defendants fail to advance any California authority for the relief sought and Miranda does not empower the court to compel an unwilling party to sign an authorization for the release of medical records, the Court declines to create an additional method of discovery.  Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization for the release of his medical records.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.