Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV05339, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05339    Hearing Date: April 30, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from a motor vehicle collision. 

Plaintiff Samuel Howard (“Plaintiff”) moves to quash Defendant Nathan Sperling’s (“Defendant”) subpoenas to the Boone Fetter Clinic at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Los Angeles Unified School District (Special Education Department); and The Mirman School for the Gifted Children and for monetary sanctions on the grounds that (1) the subpoenas fail to specify matters sought with reasonable particularity; (2) the subpoenas make unreasonable and oppressive demands for information in violation of privacy rights; and (3) Defendant persisted without substantial justification to compel compliance with the subpoenas, forcing Plaintiff to file the instant motion.

Defendant opposes the motion and requests monetary sanctions, and Plaintiff replies.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is or is not warranted.  It must provide “all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue” and it “must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)  The separate statement requirement applies to motions “to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).) 

Here, although Plaintiff has filed a separate statement, it does not include the full text of each request at issue.  Notwithstanding, Plaintiff has provided copies of the subpoenas.

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).)

Plaintiff requested from Boone Fetter Clinic at Children’s Hospital:

Records requested from 06/21/2017 through Present

All records, including but not limited to, any and all office records, medical records, inpatient and outpatient charts, notes including but not limited to doctor's notes, nurse's notes, lab notes, pathology reports, and notes made by person(s) involved in tests, test requests, test results, x-rays, radiological reports, CAT scans, MRI films, pathology slides, physical therapy and rehabilitation records, pharmacy records, prescription memoranda pertaining to insurance and fill of prescription drugs, communication records, correspondence, itemized statements of charges, insurance records, billing statements, payments and claims pertaining to the care, treatment, evaluation, and examination of the above-referenced patient.

(Ex. B.)

            Plaintiff requested from Los Angeles Unified School District (Special Education Department) (“LAUSD”):

Records requested from 06/21/2017 through Present

Seeking school records, any records or documents related to psychological evaluations and treatment by the school and/or school staff, including therapist and psychologist, documents and records reflecting any disability that the minor has been diagnosed with or referred to specialized therapy for, and records and document reflecting plaintiffs Individualized Education Program (IEP)

(Ex. B.)

            Plaintiff requested from The Mirman School for the Gifted Children:

Records requested from 06/21/2017 through Present

Seeking school records, any records or documents related to psychological evaluations and treatment by the school and/or school staff, including therapist and psychologist, documents and records reflecting any disability that the minor has been diagnosed with or referred to specialized therapy for, and records and document reflecting plaintiffs Individualized Education Program (IEP)

(Ex. B.)

            Plaintiff argues that Boone Fetter is a childhood autism clinic completely unrelated to the emotional conditions that seven-year-old, Plaintiff (Samuel Howard), sustained in the accident.  Similarly, the subpoenas to LAUSD and Mirman seek school records, school transcripts, and documents related to psychological evaluations and treatment by the school, including records reflecting any disability and reflecting plaintiff’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP.”) 

            As such, the subpoenas demand the entirety of Plaintiff’s psychological and psychiatric history “since before he was born” and are not narrowly tailored to the conditions at issue as identified in Form Interrogatories 6.2 and 6.3.

            Although a year and a half ago, Plaintiff attributed post-traumatic stress disorder and generalized anxiety disorder to the accident and listed “severe anxiety” and “severe nervousness” as ongoing symptoms, Plaintiff’s counsel has since indicated that these conditions have resolved and Plaintiff is not claiming emotional distress beyond “garden-variety emotional distress.” 

            In opposition, Defendant points out that Plaintiff did not provide a proper separate statement, and in fact, the Boone Fetter subpoena was not served to the correct address, but Defendant intends to re-serve the subpoena as-is to the proper address. 

            Defendant also argues that Plaintiff takes the contradictory positions that Plaintiff’s mental health is not at issue, but also that Plaintiff continues to seek damages for emotional distress stemming from the accident.  To the extent Plaintiff still seeks “garden variety” emotional distress damages, Defendant is still generally entitled to discovery of school and mental health records regarding preexisting conditions, such as autism, that might result in similar anxieties or developmental milestone delays. 

            That said, requesting records from before Plaintiff was even born, and requesting all records regarding any disability Plaintiff may have is overbroad.  As such, the parties should meet and confer about narrowing the scope of the requested mental health records to more closely reflect the emotional distress damages at issue.

SANCTIONS

            Because the Court finds that the requests are overbroad, but not entirely subject to quashing, and because Plaintiff failed to file a proper separate statement, the Court denies both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to quash.  Defendant is generally entitled to mental health records related to preexisting anxieties and other conditions related to Plaintiff’s claimed emotional distress, but not to records from before Plaintiff was born and not for records pertaining to other disabilities unconnected to the subject accident.  The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions.    

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  April 30, 2025                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court