I. BACKGROUND  

Plaintiffs Jose Preciado (“Jose”) and Aline Preciado (“Aline”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their First Amended Complaint against defendants San Gabriel Transit Inc. (“SGT”), Access Services (“Access”), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Steve Ly (“Ly”) and Does 1 through 50 for injuries arising from falling off an alleged moving or malfunctioning vehicle ramp on October 13, 2021.    

Plaintiff Aline now moves to quash defendant Access’s deposition subpoena for production of business records to Kaiser Permanente Central ROI Unit (“Kaiser”) for (1) Insurance Records and (2) Medical Records.  

Defendants Access, SGT, and Ly (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.  

II. MOTION TO QUASH  

The court may, upon noticed motion and opportunity to be heard, make an order quashing or modifying a third-party deposition subpoena that requires production of books or documents.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).)  In so doing, the court may make an order “as may be appropriate to protect the [party, witness, consumer or employee] from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the[ir] right of privacy.”  (Id.) 

“[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.) 

The Court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for disclosure. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-56; see also John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199.) The ascertainment of the truth in connection with legal proceedings is a compelling state interest.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 857.)  In balancing the divergent interests, the court considers the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and the availability of the alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005.) The more sensitive the nature of the personal information that is sought, the more substantial the showing of the need for the discovery that will be required before disclosure will be permitted. (Id. at 1004.) 

Here, Plaintiff Aline sets forth a derivative loss of consortium claim for injuries to her husband, Plaintiff Jose against defendants Ly and SGT. The FAC alleges that as a result of injuries to Plaintiff Jose, Plaintiff Aline suffers from loss of love, sexual relations, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, solace, society, and moral support, in addition to sustaining substantial economic and non-economic damages as a result of the loss of consortium of her spouse. (FAC at ¶¶ 61, 63.)  

Access’ subpoena served on Kaiser requests: 

“All writings as defined by Evidence Code section 250 from the first date of treatment to the present, including but not limited to any and all physical and electronic records pertaining to medical insurance coverage and claims for your insured, including but not limited to, any applications for insurance, explanation of insurance coverage and limits, eligibility records, contracts, all records of claims made by your insured or any medical provider for payment for any medical treatment received by your insured (including any form of treatment procedures, office visits, medical evaluations, physical therapy, chiropractic therapy, surgical procedures, tests, radiographic imaging, laboratory procedures, prescription fills or refills, or any other form of treatment or evaluation), all records of payments your company has made to your insured or any medical provider on behalf of your insured for any treatment he/she has received (including any form of treatment procedures, office visits, medical evaluations, physical therapy, chiropractic therapy, surgical procedures, tests, radiographic imaging, laboratory procedures, prescription fills or refills, or any other form of treatment or evaluation), all explanation of benefits forms provided by your company to your insured collected by your company in researching and evaluating any claims for coverage, and any other records pertaining to your insured' s coverage or claims for coverage for medical care.” 

(Arellanez Decl. Exh. A at p. 26.)   

Plaintiff avers she is enrolled and received healthcare benefits provided through her husband’s place of work. Plaintiff argues that the subpoena is overbroad and invades her right to privacy because it seeks records unrelated to allegations contained in the FAC. Plaintiff argues Defendants do not have good cause to demand Plaintiff’s entire history of records from Kaiser, and that Defendants do not have a compelling need for the information.  

In opposition, Defendants argue Plaintiff Aline has placed her mental and physical health at issue because her written responses provide that she attributes anxiety, insomnia, depression, and post-traumatic stress because of injuries to her husband. Defendants also provide that Plaintiff Aline has claimed, in the past, that she has had anxiety, depression, insomnia, panic attacks, etc. Further, Plaintiff Aline provides she sought treatment at Kaiser Permanente in February 2022 for anxiety and chest pain.  

When compelled disclosure intrudes on constitutionally protected areas, it cannot be justified solely on the ground that it may lead to relevant information, rather, the compelled disclosure must be directly relevant. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525.)  Here, the subject subpoena seeks Plaintiff’s entire insurance file with Kaiser with no limitation as to duration or scope. The requested records will necessarily include private documents with information not directly relevant to the claims at issue.  Defendants have not provided any justification for why Plaintiff’s entire insurance file, without limitation from the “first date of treatment to the present” of whenever she first became a Kaiser patient, is discoverable.   

Plaintiffs have raised an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff Aline’s insurance records and history under the given circumstances. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557; see also Ins. Code § 791.01, et seq.) Plaintiff’s privacy interests must be balanced against Defendants’ purported important countervailing interests that disclosure serves. It is unclear why all insurance medical claims regarding Plaintiff Aline contained in the insurance file is relevant in this matter and should be produced. However, in reply, Plaintiffs aver they had offered to resolve the issue by modifying the subpoenas for all of Plaintiff Aline’s medical, billing, psychiatric, and insurance records with a time limit of July 28, 2018 (the date of Plaintiffs’ marriage) to the present day, and to limit the injuries to that asserted for her loss of her consortium claim. However, defense counsel did not respond to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts on the grounds that defense counsel was ill and busy with post-trial motions. Considering the lack of practicability for a provider to sift through the records and ascertain what injuries may or may not be encompassed by Plaintiff Aline’s loss of consortium claim, the Court declines to limit the scope in this fashion. However, the subpoena can be reasonably limited in terms of the timeframe as a protective measure that would diminish the loss of privacy.  

Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion to quash the deposition subpoena for insurance records is GRANTED IN PART. The subpoena for insurance records is modified as follows: The language of the subpoena must include the limitation that the records sought are limited from July 28, 2018 to the present date. 

Access’ subpoena served on Kaiser requests: 

“Any and all writings as defined by Evidence Code section 250 from first day of treatment to the present, including but not limited to any and all medical and office records and reports, including but not limited to all doctors' and nurses' notes, findings, medical histories, physical examination files, prescriptions, consultation reports, x-ray reports, which pertain to the care and treatment prescribed, recommended and/or given, physical therapy treatment, trauma treatment and emergency room.” 

(Arellanez Decl. Exh. A at p. 11.) 

Defendants provide that Plaintiff Aline’s written discovery responses demonstrate attributable treatment at Kaiser for anxiety, including psychiatric treatment. Plaintiff Aline has placed her medical condition, including emotional injuries, at issue in this action. (See e.g., Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849 [plaintiffs waive the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges to all information concerning medical conditions which they place at issue in a lawsuit].) Further, Defendants contend that Plaintiff Aline’s written discovery response provides that she has claimed past injuries that coincide with her allegations of loss of consortium. Defendants are entitled to verify Plaintiff Aline’s claim of treatment at Kaiser related to the incident and its relation to her past claims. Accordingly, the requested information concerning Plaintiff Aline’s treatment for injuries relating to the accident, and claims of injury overlapping with her current complaints, are directly relevant to this action. Plaintiffs do not identify any alternative means through which Defendants can obtain the requested information. 

Nonetheless, the subpoena demands the entirety of Plaintiff Aline’s medical records “from the first day of treatment,” whenever this may be, without limitation. Defendants do not establish that information going back an unknown length of years is directly relevant to the injuries claimed in this lawsuit. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART. The subpoena for medical records is modified as follows: The language of the subpoena must include the limitation that the records sought are limited from July 28, 2018 to the present date.  

III. CONCLUSION  

Plaintiffs’ motions to quash the subpoenas to Kaiser for Plaintiff Aline’s insurance records and medical records are GRANTED IN PART, each subject to the limitation that the records sought be limited from July 28, 2018 to the present date. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs is not warranted and therefore denied.  

Lastly, CCP § 1987.1 requires that a motion to quash a subpoena be “reasonably made,” but does not explicitly require that the parties first attempt to resolve the issue informally. There are currently five more motions to quash deposition subpoenas on calendar from March 22, 2024 to March 29, 2024. Although not required, the Court strongly encourages the parties to meet and confer on the remaining subpoenas at issue in order to reach a stipulation regarding the scope of the subpoenas. Should an agreement be reached, the parties are ordered to give notice to the Court, and moving party is to promptly take the motions off-calendar.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 20th day of March 2024