Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case 20STCV46300 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

This is an employment dispute. Plaintiff Juan Camacho worked for Defendants ASI Corp. and ASI Computer Technologies, Inc., in customer service. Plaintiff underwent kidney dialysis in 2018 which required medical leave. Plaintiff alleges Defendants terminated his employment based on his disability and/or age. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (4) age discrimination, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. The Kaiser Permanente subpoena is modified to limit the temporal scope to the period from January 1, 2016, to present. The subpoenas are otherwise unmodified.

A court may quash a subpoena entirely or partially, and issue an order to protect parties, witnesses or consumers from unreasonable or oppressive demands including violations of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) A motion to quash the production of documents or tangible things requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.13459(a)(5).) “[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoenas for medical records, or in the alternative, seeks a protective order. Plaintiff contends the subpoenas are overbroad and invade his right to privacy.

Two subpoenas are at issue: Defendants served the first on Alavy Foot and Ankle Institute, seeking Plaintiff’s medical records from January 1, 2016, to present. That subpoena seeks “[a]ll records…relating to any treatment, test, diagnosis, or evaluation rendered to [Plaintiff]…relating to…[1] Any condition concerning the kidney or renal system, or concerning any side effects or symptoms relating to disease or treatment of the kidney or renal system; [2] Any condition concerning [Plaintiff’s] mental or emotional health…; and [3] Any condition for which Alavy Foot & Ankle Institute prepared, drafted, or issued a doctor’s note to [Plaintiff] attesting to any disability, limiting or restricting physical condition, inability to work, or to any restrictions on [Plaintiff’s] ability to work.” (See Aceves Decl., Exh. 01.)

Defendants served a second subpoena on Kaiser Permanente, seeking Plaintiff’s records from January 1, 2014, to present. That subpoena seeks “[a]ll records…relating to any treatment, test, diagnosis, or evaluation provided to [Plaintiff]…for any physical or mental medical condition, including, but not limited to, any anxiety, stress, depression, or any other mental health disorder.” (Id.)

The California Supreme Court has explained that “plaintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing [a] lawsuit, . . . they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 [citation and footnote omitted].) However, “. . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

There is little doubt the documents sought are relevant to this case. But Plaintiff contends the subpoenas are overbroad because only those records “at the time of termination” are relevant. (Mtn. 6: 16-17.)

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff’s medical issues giving rise to the termination started at least as early as 2018. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also alleges he suffers “severe and permanent emotional and mental distress and anguish, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety.” (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 47, 75, 102, 115.)

Records demonstrating Plaintiff’s mental and physical health are relevant to determine the existence, cause, and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, and whether some other cause may be attributable to the alleged pain and suffering. It would be difficult––if not impossible for Defendant to defend against the allegations of the complaint, particularly Plaintiff’s claims for damages, if Defendant was blocked from obtaining Plaintiff’s physical and psychological history. Because there is a genuine dispute of whether Plaintiff’s alleged pain and suffering is attributable to Defendant, all information during the relevant period is discoverable. It is also unlikely Defendant could obtain full and accurate records through other, less intrusive means than the medical records themselves.

For similar reasons, the court also finds the time periods sought in the subpoenas are narrowly tailored to the relevant time periods. Be that as it may, Defendants have apparently agreed to limit the time frame of the Kaiser Subpoena to the period of January 1, 2016, to the present—instead of January 1, 2014 to present. (See Fan Decl., ¶ 25, Ex. I.) This limitation strikes a balance between Defendants’ right to discovery of relevant records with Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. The Kaiser Permanente subpoena is modified to limit the temporal scope to the period from January 1, 2016, to present. The subpoenas are otherwise unmodified.

In making an order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.