Jason Dobbins v. The County of Los Angeles

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO INTEGRITY COUNSELING GROUP

 

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Jason Dobbins

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant County of Los Angeles

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Jason Dobbins, a Fire Captain with the Los Angeles County Fire Department and member of the Urban Search and Rescue Team, brings this action against the County of Los Angeles for discrimination. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from PTSD caused by emergency calls and an incident near the station where he works, which prevents him from working a regular-duty, 56-hour shift. Plaintiff alleges the County has denied his workplace injury claims, forced him to return to full active duty, and has denied Plaintiff a 40-hour per week administrative position. 

Plaintiff now moves to quash the deposition subpoena for the production of business records served on non-party Integrity Counseling Group. Defendant opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The subpoena is modified to include only records pertaining to individual treatment that Plaintiff received from Integrity Counseling Group.

Moving party is ordered to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoena

I. Legal Standard

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.) 

II. Analysis

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant County’s Subpoena for the Production of Business Records served on one of Plaintiff’s counseling providers, Integrity Counseling Group.

The Subpoena at issue seeks:

ANY AND ALL RECORDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS STORED DIGITALLY AND/OR ELECTRONICALLY, RELATING TO THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF ALL PSYCHIATRIC AND/OR PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICAL FILES IN YOUR POSSESION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL FOR ALL TREATMENT OR TESTING, INTAKE ASSESSMENT, DIAGNOSIS, REFERRALS, CHARTS, REPORTS, NOTES, WRITINGS, DIAGRAMS, FORMS, PRINTOUTS, LAB AND TEST RESULTS, AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH OTHER SOURCES INCLUDING MEDICAL FACILITIES AND DOCTORS AND TO/FROM ANY EMPLOYER AND/OR REPRESENTATIVE OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY INVESTIGATOR AND/OR ATTORNEYS REGARDING JASON DOBBINS FROM JANUARY 2020 TO PRESENT.

(Haney Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 1.)

First, Plaintiff argues that the subpoena must be quashed because it seeks marital counseling records and Defendant needed to, but failed, to serve Plaintiff’s wife, Andrea Dobbins, with the notice. Second, Plaintiff argues that the marital counseling records are irrelevant to this action.

Defendant opposes the motion. Defendant notes that Plaintiff identified Cory Anderson, LMFT in verified interrogatory responses, as Plaintiff’s individual therapist from whom Plaintiff sought treatment for his injuries attributable to the County’s misconduct. (Goldsmith Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A, Form Interrogatory 212.4.) Plaintiff separately identified a provider of “Marriage and Family Therapy.” (Id.) “Based on this response, and further based on the documents the County received from [a response to a separate subpoena], it is the County’s understanding that Plaintiff received individual treatment from Mr. Anderson, separate and apart from any marital counseling he did jointly with his wife, if any.” (Opp. 5: 15-18.) 

Evidence is relevant if it “ha[s] any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code § 210.)  “[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, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (CCP § 2017.010; Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 [“discovery is not limited to admissible evidence”].) 

“The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citation.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 552.)

A plaintiff may waive the psychotherapist-plaintiff privilege by placing her mental condition at issue in the lawsuit. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1016). The exception provides in relevant part that “[t]here is no privilege…as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the mental or emotional condition of the patient.”  (Id.)

Expanding on this section, 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.) 

Here, there can be no dispute that Plaintiff has placed his emotional and psychological condition at issue by bringing this lawsuit, and therefore, his therapy records are directly relevant to the issues raised. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff received “individual therapy” from Cory Anderson LMFT—as was indicated in his response to form interrogatory 212.4—those records are relevant and discoverable, as they are “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) When balancing Plaintiff’s privacy interests against Defendant’s interest in discovering these relevant documents, the balance shifts in favor of disclosure. 

However, the analysis is different to the extent the treatment involved marriage counseling. Counseling of this type would certainly invoke the privacy interests of Plaintiff’s wife, Andrea Dobbins, and bears less relevance to the issues raised by the Complaint. Defendant concedes this, but asserts there is no “actual evidence that the therapy in question exclusively involved marriage counseling involving Plaintiff’s wife as a joint participant.” (Opp. 7: 12-13.) 

Based on these considerations, the reasonable solution is to limit the subpoena to only those records involving Plaintiff’s treatment in an individual capacity. This strikes a balance between disclosure of records that might be relevant to the action with the privacy interests of Plaintiff and his wife. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The subpoena is modified to include only records pertaining to individual treatment Plaintiff received from Integrity Counseling Group.

III. Sanctions

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).)

The Court declines to award expenses as the motion was not made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   October 17, 2023 ___________________________________