SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

1. Background 

Plaintiff, Itzchel Sabarantnam (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, City of Inglewood and Doty Bros. Equipment Co. (“Doty”) for damages arising from a trip and fall on the sidewalk.   

Plaintiff, at this time, seeks to quash three deposition subpoenas issued by Defendant Doty to T- Kaiser Permanente; Good Neighbor Clinic; United Medical Imaging; International Pain Management; Lavi Spine & Orthopaedic Medical; Precise Imaging; Weststar Physical Therapy; Neurology Now, Inc.; Westchester Advanced Imaging; Samimi Orthopedic Group, Inc.; Isaac Regev, M.D.; Tip Top Anesthesia; Excel Surgery Center; David Ramin, MD; Innovative Medical Solutions; Neil Ghodara, M.D. on March 20, 2023.  Doty opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.  

Plaintiff asserts the subpoenas and overbroad and violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy because the subpoenas request any and all medical records unlimited to body parts claimed injured in the incident. Plaintiff met and conferred with Doty’s counsel, proposing to limit the subpoenas to: “Head, left foot, cervical spine, back, right shoulder, left knee, and from 01/01/2010 to the present.”   

In opposition, Doty contends the subject subpoenas seek pertinent records from providers Plaintiff identified in her discovery responses, and that Doty offered to limit the scope of the records to exclude gynecological records.  Doty further asserts that Plaintiff’s proposed limitations are too narrow because the records indicate complaints broader than the proposed limitations. Furthermore, Doty contends that Plaintiff’s motion to quash is untimely pursuant to CCP § 1985.3, because Plaintiff filed the Notice of Motion to Quash on April 28, 2023 when the production date was April 19, 2023. 

In reply, Plaintiff contends Doty failed to abide by California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(f), because Doty’s memorandum exceeded 10 pages without inclusion of a table of contents and a table of authorities and that Doty failed to file a separate statement in response to Plaintiff’s separate statement. Plaintiff also replies that her motion is not untimely.  

  

2. Motion to Quash  

a. Procedural Defects 

First, as to Doty’s argument that Plaintiff’s motion to quash is untimely because it was brought nine days after the production date, the court has authority to consider the motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum even if the motion is brought after the date for production of the documents. (In re R.R. (App. 2 Dist. 2010) 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 765.) Even if untimely, the Court will still consider the motion.  

Second, as to Plaintiff’s argument that the Court should not consider past 10 pages of Doty’s memorandum for failure to comply with CRC Rule 3.1113(f), the Court, in its discretion, will still consider Doty’s 14-page opposition on the merits. 

 

b. Analysis 

A court “may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (CCP § 1987.1.) The court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas. (See, e.g., Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)   

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action,”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)  “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ...”  (citation).”  These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and contrary to popular belief fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.  (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.) 

By filing a personal injury action, plaintiffs place in issue their past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon.  All medical and/or psychological records relating to the claimed injuries are thus discoverable.  Evidence Code §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862–864.  Normally, information about medical conditions entirely different from the injury sued upon is beyond the scope of discovery.  However, medical records pertaining to an unrelated condition are discoverable on a showing of “good cause” if the condition is relevant to the issue of proximate causation.  (Evidence Code §999; Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314–1315 [good cause shown by info that plaintiff was blind 6 months before accident].) 

In this case, Doty provides evidence showing that in response to discovery requests concerning injuries Plaintiff attributed to the accident. Plaintiff is claiming injuries for “Head, left foot, cervical spine, back, right shoulder, left knee.” Additionally, Doty contends that the medical records produced by Plaintiff identify additional areas of concern, such as her groin, buttocks, side of thigh, lower spine, depression, insomnia, and labyrinthitis complaints. (Opp. Decl. Sicari, ¶ 10.) Doty contends that the records further refer that Plaintiff’s complaints could be related to prediabetic hyperglycemic state. (Id.) Finally, the records produced by Plaintiff reference pain and/or discomfort while driving, doing certain unspecified exercises, walking more than 30 minutes, changing her clothes, washing her hair, and doing house chores. (Id.) Therefore, Doty contends that Plaintiff’s proposed scope limitation is too narrow because Plaintiff has placed her entire physical, mental, neurological, and emotional state at issue in this case. Doty’s counsel requested Plaintiff’s counsel to provide, in general terms, any medical issues that gave Plaintiff cause for concern and an agreement could be reached regarding the limiting of these items. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Furthermore, Doty avers that Kaiser Permanente (“Kaiser”) will reject subpoenas limiting production to body parts, medical conditions, or symptoms. (Sicari Decl. Exh. D.) 

Plaintiff contends Doty failed to provide any evidence that Plaintiff’s records relate her complaints to prediabetic hyperglycemia, and that Doty’s counsel only agreed to exclude gynecological records as the only limitation. Plaintiff also contends that the issue with Kaiser was not discussed with counsel for Plaintiff before, and that the subpoena is related to another defendant in this matter.  

The subject subpoenas seek “Any and all documents and records pertaining to care, treatment, examination, testing, evaluation, diagnosis and prognosis of [Plaintiff]….Any and all consultative reports, radiological study reports, test results, blood work and lab results, or other reports relating to [Plaintiff]…Any and all correspondence (including letters, notes, memoranda, emails, faxes, voicemails, etc.) and telephonic conversation notes to or from [Plaintiff]….Any and all patient education materials (including brochures, pamphlets, videos, and/or links to the same materials stored online) provided to [Plaintiff]” beginning from January 1, 2010.  

The subpoenas as drafted would necessarily include information regarding any treatment Plaintiff has ever received for any condition she may have had, whether related to the subject accident or not.  As noted above, there are times when preexisting conditions are of such relevance to the issues presented that evidence relating to these conditions is discoverable. Doty avers Plaintiff’s condition of prediabetic hyperglycemia may be directly relevant to the injuries claimed in this lawsuit. However, it is unclear how prediabetic hyperglycemia referring to complaints related to her lower spine, depression, insomnia, labyrinthitis, and lower extremities are directly relevant to the injuries claimed in this lawsuit, which Plaintiff had limited to “right shoulder, lumber spine, head, left ankle, left knee” in her discovery responses. 

Accordingly, Doty fails to meaningfully articulate why Plaintiff’s complete patient file and medical records from the subject healthcare providers is discoverable. Therefore, Doty failed to meet its burden to show that the records it seeks are so relevant as to outweigh Plaintiff’s right to privacy.¿¿ 

 

  Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is granted.    

 

  CCP § 1987.2 provides that 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.” The parties both request sanctions against each other. Under these circumstances, the Court finds sanctions are unwarranted.  The Court declines to award sanctions.     

 

  Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.    

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 28th day of June 2023