Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01897, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01897 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01897 Isabella Lopez Alvarez v.
Raffi Honarchian, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
This action arises
from injuries sustained by Plaintiff in an automobile accident. Plaintiff moves
to quash four subpoenas for medical, billing, and insurance records pertaining
to Plaintiff. The subpoenas are overbroad in scope and seek records irrelevant
to particular claims sustained by Plaintiff and violate her rights to privacy.
Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendants, but the parties could not resolve
their differences.
In opposition,
Defendants, Odelic Inc., dba Amway Logistics, and Rafik Saki Honarchian
(“Defendants”) argue that the records are relevant because Plaintiff claimed to
have suffered from pre-incident injuries to her low back and bilateral hip pain
and was diagnosed with arthritis prior to the incident. Plaintiff could not
recall her pre-incident providers. Plaintiff also contends she sustained
property damage although she did not produce records pertinent to that issue. Defendants
claim they are entitled to insurance records that reflect any benefits paid for
property damage arising from this incident. Defendants argue that Plaintiff
should have required an informal discovery conference with the court and failed
to meet and confer in good faith.
In reply, Plaintiff
asserts that the parties have continued to meet and confer, and only one
subpoena for all documents from Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club
(“AAA”) remains at issue. Plaintiff asserts that she has provided the
declaration page of her policy to establish that Plaintiff had liability
coverage. Plaintiff’s verified discovery responses to Defendants’ form
interrogatories assert that Plaintiff personally paid $9,210.00 to Carillo body
shop and produced the receipt of payment. The production of Plaintiff’s entire
insurance records violates Plaintiff’s right of privacy.
II.
DISCUSSION
The court can quash a subpoena to protect
the Plaintiff from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable
violations of the right of privacy by motion “reasonably made.” The court has
discretion to quash the subpoena upon such terms or conditions as the court
shall declare, including issuing protective orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
Plaintiff states the only subpoena at
issue is the one served on AAA. (Mot., pdf pp. 39). Defendants request any and
all writings, including payments made and/or denied regarding insurance
coverage issued to Plaintiff “for any and all dates.” (Ex. 1, pdf pp. 42.)
The right to privacy is protected by the
California Constitution. (Vinson
v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d
833, 839.) Where privacy rights are implicated, Defendants are required to show
that the records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and essential to
the fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Davis
v. Superior Court (1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.) There is an implicit waiver of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights encompassing discovery directly relevant to Plaintiff’s
claim. Even if discovery of private information is found
directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, “it will not be
automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling
public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy.” (Id.) Finally,
the scope of the permitted inquiry depends on the nature of the injuries which
the Plaintiff has brought to the court. (Britt v. Superior Court
(1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 864.)
Insurance records are protected from
disclosure and cannot be divulged without Plaintiff’s consent. (Ins. Code §
791.13 [Insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization shall
not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual
collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction without
consent of the consumer].) Defendant has not met its burden of establishing
that Plaintiff’s insurance records, unlimited by time or to a particular
accident is directly relevant to the particular accident at issue in this
litigation. The subpoena also requests “patient histories” in general, which is
also protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
Defendant’s opposition makes clear that the
information sought is relevant to Plaintiff’s property damage claim sustained as
a result of this accident, as Plaintiff was unable to show proof of auto
insurance at the scene of the accident. (Opp. 7:23-28.) Defendant is entitled
to discover evidence to support or negate Plaintiff’s property damage claim.
Plaintiff’s reliance on the contention
that the information violates the collateral source rule is inapposite. The
doctrine "prohibits the reduction of damages a tortfeasor owes to the
plaintiff because the plaintiff received compensation from an independent
source." (21st
Century Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 511, 526.)
Here, Defendant seeks information that may support or deny whether Plaintiff
suffered property damage in the first instance. Plaintiff does not cite any
authority for the proposition that Defendant is limited only to the documents
Plaintiff has in her possession. The issue here is discovery, not
admissibility.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to AAA is GRANTED in limited
part. The court exercises its discretion to limit the scope of the subpoena for
insurance coverage claims for property damage sustained in this particular
accident. Defendants have not established any other basis for the broad scope
of documents sought.