Charlotte Parker, Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to John Doe P.C., deceased, v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Metropolitan Los Angeles

(1) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL DEL AMO HOSPITAL TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

(2) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL GLENDALE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Young Men’s Christian Association of Metropolitan Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Charlotte Parker brings this action individually and as Successor-in-Interest to her deceased son, John Doe P.C. Plaintiff alleges in approximately 1985 or 1986, John Doe P.C. was sexually assaulted during a camping trip by Doe Defendants 2 and 3, alleged to be employees, agents, or representatives of Defendant Young Men’s Christian Association of Metropolitan Los Angeles (“YMCA”). Plaintiff alleges the sexual assault affected her son as a child and throughout his entire life, ultimately leading to his passing on December 30, 2022. Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendants for (1) childhood sexual assault, (2) sexual battery, (3) IIED, (4) negligence, (5) negligent retention/supervision/failure to warn, and (6) survival action under CCP § 377.30 et seq.

Defendant YMCA now brings two motions to compel production of business records pursuant to subpoenas served on two non-party hospitals: Del Amo Hospital and Glendale Memorial Hospital. No opposition was filed.  

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Records from Del Amo Hospital is GRANTED.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Records from Glendale Memorial Hospital is also GRANTED.

Defendant may submit proposed Orders consistent with this ruling to be served upon these hospitals.

DISCUSSION: 

Motions to Compel

Analysis

Defendant YMCA moves to compel production of Decedent’s medical and mental health records pursuant to subpoenas served on non-party hospitals Del Amo Hospital and Glendale Memorial Hospital. Because the motions are substantively similar, the court addresses them together. 

Plaintiff disclosed in a response to interrogatories that Decedent received treatment at these hospitals. Because the decedent has passed, YMCA cannot obtain his authorization for the release of his records. 

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (CCP § 2025.480.)

As to the discovery of medical history, 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.) 

The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges that defendants negligent and intentional acts caused Decedent to suffer “great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, physical manifestations of emotional distress, loss of relationships, and loss of enjoyment of life and ultimately, his life.” (SAC ¶ 37.) 

Here, based on the allegations in the operative SAC, the hospital records are “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) It is also unlikely Defendant can obtain full and accurate records through other, less intrusive means than the medical records themselves. Thus, the balance weighs in favor of disclosure of the records. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Records from Del Amo Hospital is GRANTED.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Records from Glendale Memorial Hospital is also GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   November 30, 2023 ___________________________________