Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24CMCV00089, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CMCV00089    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: A

24CMCV00089 Oscar Alberto Ramirez v. Mike Rademaker dba HB Crane Services, et al.

Thursday, October 30, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S FORTY (40) SUBPOENAS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND/OR TO MODIFY THE SUBPOENAS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

I.       BACKGROUND     

      This action arises from a rear-end collision, automobile accident that occurred on February 28, 2022. Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence against the driver and owner of the vehicle.

II.     ARGUMENTS

      Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ 40 subpoenas served on Plaintiff’s medical providers and medical facilities are overbroad and violate Plaintiff’s constitutional privacy. The records are confidential and protected from disclosure. Defendants would not limit the subpoenas despite efforts to meet and confer. Defendants do not have substantial justification for issuing the subpoenas, and therefore, sanctions should be imposed.

      In opposition, Defendants argue that all the records are relevant and discoverable since Plaintiff placed various bodily injuries at issue. Plaintiff does not limit injuries to a single bodily part. Plaintiff disclosed a prior accident in 2007 which may or may not have resulted in the same or similar injuries. Defendants are entitled to records that bear on prior injuries. Defendants are entitled to a complete picture of Plaintiff’s health and medical history.

      In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not addressed any issues raised by Plaintiff, namely, that the subpoenas are overbroad and infringe on Plaintiff’s privacy rights. As written, the subpoenas would arguably reach medical records that are unrelated to any injury Plaintiff suffered as a result of this incident.

III.    DISCUSSION

      The court can quash a subpoena to protect a party from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. The court has discretion to quash or modify a subpoena upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including issuing protective orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

      While Defendants contend that 34 subpoenas are at issue and not 40, there is no dispute that 13 of the identified subpoenas seek production of Plaintiff’s medical records. The description of most of the records sought are identical:

FROM 08/14/2014 TO PRESENT: A CERTIFIED COPY OF any and all records, reports, charts, graphs, accident reports, emergency room, records, admit sheets, histories, x-ray reports, radiographic reports, electrocardiograms, electroencephalograms, lab reports, nurses' notes, physicians' notes and orders, pharmacy records, temperature charts, discharge summaries, operative reports, correspondence; any and all incident reports; any and all other medical information which you have regarding, Oscar A Ramirez. (Mot., Ex. A.)

      A few subpoenas are specifically tailored to the production of x-rays, CT scans, electrocardiograms, billing records, or insurance forms depending on the facility. They are all identical in scope in that they seek “any and all” such documents or films relating to Plaintiff from August 14, 2014, to the present.      

      The right to privacy is protected by the California Constitution. The right may be partially waived if the medical condition is a basis for the lawsuit. However, the waiver attaches only to those issues directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim and essential to a fair resolution of his suit. Partial waiver is effected by filing a lawsuit, but it is narrowly construed. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839.) The proponent of discovery has the threshold burden of showing that the records sought are directly relevant to the claim or defense. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.)

      The scope of permitted inquiry depends on the nature of the injuries which the Plaintiff has brought to the court. A party’s lifetime medical history is not relevant. Discovery is limited to the specific injury at issue. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) An order compelling disclosure must be narrowly tailored so as not to infringe on constitutional rights. (Fults v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 899, 904.)

      Plaintiff’s injuries are largely confined to the right shoulder; cervical, midback, and lumbar spine:

“Anxiety; Headaches; Post Concussive Syndrome; Ringing In Both Ears; Neck Spasms; Neck Pain; Cervicalgia; Right Shoulder Pain; Loss Of Normal Cervical Lordosis; Cervical Spine/ Strain; Disk Protrusions; Mid Back Pain; Low Back Pain; Loss Of Normal Lumbar Lordosis; Lower Back Spasms; and Lumbar Spine/ Strain With Radicular Complaints. (Opp., Ex. A, .pdf p. 23 l. 6-9.)

      One medical record indicates Plaintiff was involved in a prior motor vehicle accident in 2007. (Opp. .pdf p. 61.) 

      The description of records sought is overbroad in that it is not limited in any respect to injuries suffered as a result of the February 28, 2022, accident, or injuries specific to Plaintiffs’ spine and shoulders. Speculation over what the records might contain is not enough to compel disclosure of records. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017 [“Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice.”].) Plaintiff’s disclosure of a prior incident 15 years prior to the incident at issue is not enough to permit disclosure of Plaintiff’s “entire medical picture” as Defendants contend, given that Plaintiff’s injuries suffered are limited.

      Defendants also seek production of insurance records, which 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].)

      The subpoena for insurance records is equally overbroad as it is not limited to billing incurred as a result of this incident or billing for treatment for specific injuries. (Mot., Ex. A, pdf p. 77 [“any and all other information which you have regarding [Plaintiff]”.) Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that unlimited disclosure of Plaintiff’s insurance records are directly relevant to issues raised in this litigation.

      The subpoena served on the California Highway Patrol requests documents for the same time period that relate to Plaintiff from police agencies, including written reports, audio, video, and other camera footage prior to and after the collision. (Mot., Ex. A, .pdf p. 72.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated how government agency reports violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right of privacy. These records relate directly to the incident that occurred.

      Plaintiff is entitled to recover for fees and costs incurred to prepare this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2.) The court imposes sanctions of $1,260.00 on Defendants and their attorneys of record, Steve Settles, Esq., And The Hanover Law Office – West California.

IV.   CONCLUSION

      Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s alternative request to modify subpoenas 1-13 to limit inquiry to records directly relevant to the injuries Plaintiff’s sustained as a result of this incident and to  injuries specific to the same body parts since 2014. (Mot. .pdf p. 2, l. 6-18.) The motion is DENIED as to subpoena No. 14 issued to California Highway Patrol (Mot .pdf p. 2, l. 19.)  Defendants and their counsel, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions of $1,260 to Plaintiff within 10 days.