Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV07578, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07578    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 71

 

 

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

LISA HARPER,

 

         vs.

 

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

 Case No.:  21STCV07578

 

 

 

Hearing Date:  September 21, 2022

 

Plaintiff Lisa Harper’s motion to quash Defendant Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s medical record subpoena is denied.

 

Defendant Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s request for sanctions is denied.

 

Plaintiff Lisa Harper’s motion for protective order is denied.

 

Defendant Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s request for sanctions is denied.

 

          Plaintiff Lisa Harper (“Harper”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order to quash or modify Defendant Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s (“SMMUSD”) (“Defendant”) deposition subpoenas to produce confidential medical and psychological records from Gale Hylton, M.D. (“Dr. Hylton”). (Notice Motion to Quash, pg. ii.)  Plaintiff further moves for a protective order to quash the deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of records from Dr. Hylton.  (Notice Motion for Protective Order, pg. 2.)  Defendant has requested sanctions for Plaintiff’s motion to quash deposition subpoenas in the amount of $2,000.00 and motion for protective order in the amount of $1,600.00.  (Opposition Motion to Quash, pg. 2; Opposition Protective Order, pg. 2)

 

          Background

 

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant asserting causes of (1) discrimination in violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq.; (2) retaliation in violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq.; (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq.; (4) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq.; (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of Gov’t Code §12940(k); (6) declaratory judgment; and (7) retaliation for disclosing violations of law (Labor Code §§1102.5, 1102.6). Plaintiff alleges she was employed by Defendant as a paraprofessional on or about August 22, 2019, and throughout her employment suffered from disabilities affecting her major life activities and requested accommodations for those disabilities.  (Complaint ¶¶15-16.)  Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed and refused to accommodate Plaintiff and failed and refused to engage in a good-faith interactive process.  (Complaint ¶17.)  Plaintiff further alleges that throughout her employment she made several complaints regarding the mistreatment and neglect and/or her good-faith belief of the mistreatment and neglect, of students with disabilities by other employees, in violation of law, including instances where a teacher was forcing a student to walk on braces for long distances that should have been in a wheelchair; teachers were not listening to students with disabilities express their needs; and teacher and staff were verbally and physically abusing students with disabilities.  (Complaint ¶18.)  Plaintiff alleges on or around September 2019, she was subjected to harassment and verbal abuse from coworkers due to her complaints and was transferred out of her classroom to a classroom with limited duties.  (Complaint ¶21.)  Plaintiff alleges that she was refused a new assignment and later terminated from employment in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints and based on her disability.  (Complaint ¶23.)

 

          On or about May 5, 2022, Defendant served subpoenas seeking medical records from Dr. Hylton pertaining to Plaintiff.  (Decl. of Schulman Protective Order ¶5.)  Plaintiff objected to the subpoenas on the basis that they were overly broad and not limited to documents directly relevant to this case.  (Decl. of Schulman Quash Subpoena ¶3; Decl. of Schulman Protective Order ¶5, Exh. 3.)  Plaintiff made attempts to contact Defendant by email to meet and confer about the subpoenas and never received a response.  (Decl. of Schulman Quash Subpoena ¶4, Exh. 2; Decl. of Schulman Protective Order ¶6, Exh. 4.)  On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed her motion to quash Defendant’s medical record subpoenas.  (Motion to Quash; Decl. of Schulman Protective Order ¶6.) Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoena on September 8, 2022 and requested sanctions in the amount of $2,000 against Plaintiff.  (Opposition Motion to Quash.)   Plaintiff filed her reply on September 14, 2022.  (Reply in Support of Motion to Quash.)

 

On June 1, 2022, Defendant served Dr. Hylton with a deposition subpoena for her personal appearance and production of the same records sought in the May 5, 2022, subpoenas, updated with requests for records from time periods relevant to this litigation.  (Decl. of Schulman Protective Order ¶¶5, 7, Exhs. 3, 5.)  On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed her motion for protective order to prevent the deposition of Dr. Hylton and to prevent production of records at deposition.  (Motion for Protective Order.)  Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for protective order on September 8, 2022 and requested sanctions in the amount of $1,600 against Plaintiff.  (Opposition Protective Order.) 

 

          Legal Standards

 

  1. Motion to Quash Subpoena

     

    C.C.P. §1987.1 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things… at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party]…, 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.” (C.C.P. §1987.1(a).)

     

  2. Sanctions for Motion to Quash

     

    C.C.P. §1987.2 provides: “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.” (C.C.P. §1987.2(a).)

     

  3. Protective Order

     

    “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”  (C.C.P. §2031.060(a).) Such a motion will include a meet and confer declaration pursuant to C.C.P. § 2016.040. (Id.)  Protective orders may be also granted on motion of the deponent or any party, or any third person who could be affected by the disclosure (e.g., a nonparty whose privacy would be impaired).  (C.C.P. § 2025.420(a).)  The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter outside of court. (Id.)

     

    The decision upon whether to enter a protective order lies within the sound discretion of the court.  (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588, 591; Meritplan Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 237, 242.)  Moving parties have the burden to show good cause for protective order.  (Emerson Electric Co. v Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.)   

     

  4. Sanctions for Protective Order

 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (C.C.P. §2025.420(h).)

 

          Discussion

                   

  1. Motion to Quash Subpoenas

     

    Plaintiff objects to the following requests for documents in Dr. Hylton’s possession:

     

  1. All letters issued by DR. HYLTON to any of LISA HARPER’s employers.

 

(Decl. Of Schulman Motion to Quash, Exh. 1-A; Separate Statement.)

 

  1. All treatment records of DR. HYLTON’s regarding LISA HARPER wherein she describes the Hamas terrorist group, sending invitations for a non-existent wedding, or mistreatment while working for any employer.

    …

     

3. All treatment records of DR. HYLTON’s which reflect Dr. Hylton’s diagnosis of LISA HARPER’s medical condition.

 

(Decl. Of Schulman Motion to Quash, Exh. 1-B; Separate Statement.)

 

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s requests on the basis that they violate Plaintiff’s Constitutional right to privacy, the privacy rights of third parties with no notice of the pending action, and are completely unrelated to issues in this litigation. (Separate Statement, pg. 2.)  Plaintiff also objects on the basis that waiver of the physician-patient privilege extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question and not Plaintiff’s entire medical history. (Separate Statement, pgs. 2, 7-8, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849.) Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the request for Dr. Hylton to disclose facts of treatment relating to any of Plaintiff’s employers, as it applies to too lengthy a period and is overbroad.  (Separate Statement, pg. 2, citing Hallendorf v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 553, 557.)

 

In opposition, Defendant argues that Defendant is permitted to discover whether Plaintiff’s disability “meant there was no manner in which Plaintiff could work with other employees, based on similar delusions Plaintiff testified about concerning her belief that she had an association with the Hamas terrorist group, had sent invitations for a wedding she was not having, and had been mistreated while working for [Service Corporation International, a prior employer] just prior to starting at the District.” (Opposition, pg. 9; Walsh Decl. ¶¶3, 5, Ex. H).

 

Defendant’s subpoena request that Dr. Hylton produce “All letters issued by Dr. Hylton to any of [Plaintiff]’s employers” is related to the issues litigated concerning employers’ notice to an accommodation of Plaintiff’s disability.  Further, the request for Dr. Hylton’s records where Plaintiff “describes the Hamas terrorist group, sending invitations for a non-existent wedding, or mistreatment while working for any employer” are also narrow in scope and relevant to Defendant’s inquiry into manifestations of Plaintiff’s disability in the work environment; further, Plaintiff submitted to questions in her deposition regarding her disability and medical providers’ diagnoses. (Walsh Decl., Exh. H.) Defendant’s final request for treatment records reflecting Dr. Hylton’s diagnosis of Plaintiff’s medical condition is relevant because Dr. Hylton was Plaintiff’s treating physician during the period relevant to litigation and provides the basis for Plaintiff’s disability claim.  Plaintiff’s right to privacy is outweighed by the Defendant’s right to obtain these records given the allegations of the complaint.

 

 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s medical record subpoena is denied.

 

  1. Sanctions for Motion to Quash

 

Defendants request a motion for sanctions in the amount of $2,000.  The Court declines to award sanctions on the basis that Plaintiff’s objections were made with substantial justification, given Plaintiff’s evidentiary right to patient-psychotherapist privilege and right to privacy under the California Constitution.

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $2,000 is denied.

 

  1. Protective Order

     

    Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is. Plaintiff moves for a protective order on the grounds that Defendant seeks Dr. Hylton’s testimony would inform the claims or defenses in this case and has been requested for the purpose of harassment.  (Memorandum Protective Order, pgs. 2, 8.)  As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff attempted to resolve this matter informally in good faith in compliance with C.C.P. § 2025.420(a). (Decl. of Schulman Protective Order ¶¶8-9, Exh. 6.)

     

    Defendant’s subpoena for medical records and personal deposition of Dr. Hylton is appropriate.  Defendant has sought Dr. Hylton’s medical records on four prior occasions; Defendant declares that Plaintiff produced records from Kaiser Permanente rather than Dr. Hylton, and upon further inquiry, Plaintiff responded that she did not intend to produce any other records from Dr. Hylton.  (Decl. of Pitts ¶9.)  Defendant further justifies its request for Dr. Hylton’s testimony because “she had been identified as a witness by Plaintiff in her interrogatory responses.”  (Decl. of Pitts ¶11, Exh. B.)

     

    This Court has denied Plaintiff’s request to quash Defendant’s May 5, 2022 subpoenas for Dr. Hylton’s medical records.  Therefore, a protective order is not necessary to limit Defendant’s access to the records it seeks. Further, Dr. Hylton’s direct testimony in deposition may clarify any medical records that require additional inquiry, considering Defendant has not had access to Dr. Hylton’s medical records.

     

     

    Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is denied.

     

  2. Sanctions for Protective Order

     

    Because Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in opposing Defendant’s subpoena, sanctions against Plaintiff would not be appropriate.  (C.C.P. § 2025.420(h).)  

     

    Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record is denied.

     

    Conclusion

     

    Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s May 5, 2022 subpoena is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is denied.

     

    Defendant’s motions for sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record are denied.

     

     

    Dated: September 21, 2022

                                                                                                                           

    Hon. Monica Bachner

    Judge of the Superior Court