Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 20STCV45734, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV45734 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: D
TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 3
Date: 2/23/2024
Case No: 20 STCV45734 Trial Date: March 3, 2025
Case Name: Flessas, et al. v. ResMed Corp., et al.
MOTION FOR ORDER TO RELEASE
MARRIAGE RECORDS
Moving Party: Defendant ResMed Corp.
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Diane Flessas and Estate of Russell Rowland
(No Opposition)
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order directing the Office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to disclose and provide copies of the confidential marriage certificate and records of plaintiff Diane Flessas to Russell Rowland, in relation to the marriage entered into on June 14, 2019.
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
This wrongful death and survival action is brought by plaintiffs Diane Flessas, the surviving spouse of decedent Russell Rowland, and Jonathon Rowland, decedent’s surviving natural son. Plaintiffs Flessas and Jonathan Rowland are also the successors in interest to decedent, and Flessas is also the personal representative of the Estate of Russell Rowland.
Plaintiffs allege that decedent was a loving husband and father, who was also a quadriplegic who required the aid of a ventilator to breathe. The complaint alleges that in May of 2019, air hoses on decedent’s ResMed Astral 150 ventilator, designed and manufactured by defendants ResMed Corp, ResMed, Inc. and ResMed Motor Technologies, Inc. (the ResMed defendants) became disconnected, but the alarm volume on the ventilator was so low that decedent’s caretaker could not hear it outside the front door from approximately forty-five feet away. Decedent could not breathe for twenty minutes, was discovered unconscious, and was then rushed by paramedics to the hospital, where he slipped into a coma and died fifty-four days later.
The complaint alleges wrongful death and survival causes of action against defendants based on various theories of strict product liability and negligence.
ANALYSIS:
Defendant ResMed Corp., dba in California as ResMed Inc. (ResMed) brings this motion seeking an order directing the release of the confidential marriage certificate and supporting records concerning the marriage of plaintiff Flessas to decedent. Defendant argues that this order is necessary to permit defendant to evaluate whether plaintiff Flessas has standing as the surviving spouse of decedent to prosecute this lawsuit.
Defendant indicates that plaintiff Flessas obtained a confidential marriage license and certificate to Rusell Rowland dated June 14, 2019. Upon receipt of a copy of the issued marriage license through written discovery, defendant sought additional marriage documents, including the marriage application, affidavits, and other accompanying documents from the Office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, but due to the confidential status of the marriage documents, defendant is unable to obtain such documents by way of subpoena. [Taylor Decl., paras 3, 5, 7, 8, Ex. A]. In response to a subpoena served on the Registrar, the Registrar indicated it would not comply with the subpoena absent a court order. [Taylor Decl., para. 7].
Defendant believes the documents held by the Registrar will directly bear on the standing of plaintiff Flessas to pursue the wrongful death action as an individual, and the surviving spouse of decedent, as the marriage certificate was evidently obtained in June of 2019, when it is alleged that decedent was in a coma, following the incident in May of 2019, and prior to his death in July of 2019.
Relief is sought under CCP section 2017.010 and Family Code section 511(c).
Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Family Code section 511 provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the county clerk shall maintain confidential marriage certificates filed pursuant to Section 506 as permanent records which shall not be open to public inspection except upon order of the court issued upon a showing of good cause. The confidential marriage license is a confidential record and not open to public inspection without an order from the court….
(c) The county clerk may conduct a search for a confidential marriage certificate for the purpose of confirming the existence of a marriage, but the date of the marriage and any other information contained in the certificate shall not be disclosed except upon order of the court.”
Defendant argues that good cause exists to order disclosure of the records sought to confirm the existence of the marriage, in effect, that at the time the marriage was entered into there was consent of the parties to the marriage. Defendant argues that under the wrongful death statute, CCP section 337.60, a wrongful death cause of action may be asserted by enumerated persons, including, “the decedent’s surviving spouse.” Under Family Code section 300 (a), “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.”
Defendant argues that plaintiff Flessas has conceded that a marriage the parties entered into in an informal ceremony in 1993 was not a legally recognized marriage, and that the parties could not be legally married at that time because Russell Rowland would no longer be eligible for benefits, he was receiving. Defendant submits deposition testimony of plaintiff Flessas, describing the process she went through to obtain the confidential marriage certificate in 2019, when Russell Rowland was not present, but in a comatose state, and based on a report from Flessas that Russell Rowland was not present because he was bedbound and paralyzed, without disclosing he was in a coma, as well as various documents plaintiff completed which were necessary for the confidential marriage license to be issued. [Taylor Decl. para. 4, Ex. B, Flessas Depo., pp. 281-285.]
Defendant has attempted to obtain these documents directly from plaintiff, whose counsel has not provided the documents but indicated counsel was uncertain if Flessas had those documents in her possession. [Taylor Decl., para. 8]. Defendant has attempted to obtain the additional marriage records from the Registrar, but has been informed the Registrar would not comply with the subpoena, absent a court order signed by a judge. [Taylor Decl., paras. 5-7].
This showing is sufficient to establish good cause for the disclosure of the records, and that a court order is necessary to obtain them.
There is no timely written opposition to the motion, and no indication that plaintiffs object to the release of the records from the Registrar’s files. The motion accordingly is granted, and the order issued as requested.
RULING:
[No Opposition]
Defendant ResMed, Corp.’s UNOPPOSED Motion for Order to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to Disclose and Release Marriage Records of Plaintiff Diane Flessas to Russell Rowland is GRANTED.
The Court orders the Office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to disclose and provide copies of the confidential marriage certificate and all records in the file of plaintiff Diane Flessas and/or Russell Rowland, in relation to the marriage between them entered into on June 14, 2019. The documents to be disclosed are to include, but not be limited to, the marriage license itself, any applications, any affidavits certifying the reasons for the unavailability of Russell Rowland to appear in person, and all documents or information contained in the marriage file.
DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE
AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES
Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.
If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.