Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV46671, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.
Case Number: 20STCV46671 Hearing Date: December 9, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
20STCV46671 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
December
9, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: plaintiffs’ motion to quash or modify
subpoenas, for sanctions, and for order of disclosure of entities financing
the action |
||
MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Annette Turner and Tammy
Davis
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas, for Sanctions, and for Order of
Disclosure of Entities Financing the Action
The court
considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with
this motion.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs Annette Turner (“Turner”) and Tammy Davis (“Davis”) (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) move the court for an order (1) quashing or modifying various deposition
subpoenas served by defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. (“Defendant”);
(2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in
the amount of $47,500; and (3) requiring Defendant to disclose all contracts
between Defendant and its attorneys of record and/or any other individual or
entity that is financing all or part of this action.
First, the court grants in part Plaintiffs’ motion to quash or modify
deposition subpoenas as follows.
The court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to quash the Deposition Subpoenas
for the Production of Business Records that were purportedly served on United
Medical Imaging of Los Angeles—Medical, United Medical Imaging of Los
Angeles—Radiology, Wesley Health Centers—Medical, Wesley Health
Centers—Billing, and Wesley Health Centers—Radiology, which Plaintiffs assert
are attached to the supporting declaration as Exhibits 10 and 12-15, because Plaintiffs
did not file those subpoenas in connection with their moving papers. (Notice of Mot., p. 3:14-15 [identifying
subpoena on United Medical Imaging of Los Angeles—Medical to be Exhibit 10], 3:28-34
[identifying subpoenas on United Medical Imaging of Los Angeles—Radiology and
Wesley Health Centers—Medical, Billing, and Radiology to be Exhibits 12-15,
respectively]; Harings Decl., PDF pp. 93-94, 102-106.) While the court notes that Plaintiffs assert
that they have attached those subpoenas to their reply papers, the subpoenas
were required to be filed in support of Plaintiffs’ moving papers in order to
give Defendant an opportunity to oppose the motion to quash as to those
subpoenas.
The court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to quash the Deposition
Subpoenas for the Production of Business Records that Defendant served on the
Los Angeles Police Department Discovery Section as to plaintiff Turner,
Department of Healthcare Services as to plaintiff Davis, and the Los Angeles
Police Department Discovery Section as to plaintiff Davis, because those
subpoenas are overbroad since (1) they request information that is not relevant
to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) they request documents that are
protected by Plaintiffs’ rights of privacy.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.1, subd. (a), 2017.010; Harings Decl., Ex. 1
[Subpoena issued to Los Angeles Police Department]; Harings Decl., Ex. 8
[Subpoena issued to Department of Healthcare Services]; Harings Decl., Ex. 9
[Subpoena issued to Los Angeles Police Department – Discovery Section]; Harings
Decl., Ex. 18 [Subpoena issued to Department of Healthcare Services].)
The court grants in part, as follows, plaintiff Turner’s motion to
modify the Deposition Subpoenas for the Production of Business Records that
Defendant served on the following deponents: (1) Los Angeles General Medical
Center – Medical, (2) Los Angeles General Medical Center – Billing, (3) Los
Angeles General Medical Center – Radiology, and (4) ELADH, L.P., c/o CT
Corporation System. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1987.1, subd. (a); Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864;
Harings Decl., Ex. 2 [Subpoena issued to Los Angeles General Medical Center –
Medical]; Harings Decl., Ex. 3 [Subpoena issued to Los Angeles General Medical
Center – Billing]; Harings Decl., Ex. 4 [Subpoena issued to Los Angeles General
Medical Center—Radiology]; Harings Decl., Ex. 5 [Subpoena issued to ELADH,
L.P., c/o CT Corporation System].) The
court modifies the subpoenas identified above to require that the deponents
shall only have to respond to document demand number 3 and are not required to
produce documents responsive to, or to comply with, any other request. The court finds that the other demands in the
subpoenas identified above are overbroad because (1) they request information that
is not relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) they request documents
that are protected by plaintiff Turner’s right to privacy and are not limited
to the physical or mental conditions which plaintiff Turner has put in issue in
this action. (Ibid.)
The court grants plaintiff Turner’s motion to modify the Deposition
Subpoena for the Production of Business Records that Defendant served on H.
Claude Hudson Comprehensive Health Center – Radiology to require that the
deponent shall only have to respond to document demand number 2 and is not
required to produce documents responsive to, or to comply with, the other
request. The court finds that the demand
number 1 is overbroad because (1) it requests information that is not relevant
to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) it requests documents that are
protected by plaintiff Turner’s right to privacy and are not limited to the
physical or mental conditions which plaintiff Turner has put in issue in this
action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1,
subd. (a); Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 864; Harings Decl., Ex. 6
[Subpoena issued to H. Claude Hudson Comprehensive Health Center – Radiology].)
The court grants in part, as follows, Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the
Deposition Subpoenas for the Production of Business Records that Defendant
served on the following deponents: (1) CVS Pharmacy, Inc., c/o CT Corporation
System, (2) United Medical Imaging of Los Angeles – Billing, (3) Avita Pharmacy
#1001, (4) United Medical Imaging of Los Angeles – Billing, (5) California
Hospital Medical Center – Medical, (6) California Hospital Medical Center –
Billing, (7) California Hospital Medical Center – Radiology, (8) Los Angeles
General Medical Center – Medical, (9) Los Angeles General Medical Center –
Billing, and (10) Los Angeles General Medical Center – Radiology. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a); Britt,
supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 864; Harings Decl., Ex. 7 [Subpoena issued to CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System]; Harings Decl., Ex. 11 [Subpoena
issued to United Medical Imaging of Los Angeles – Billing]; Harings Decl., Ex.
16 [Subpoena issued to Avita Pharmacy]; Harings Decl., Ex. 17 [Subpoena issued
to United Medical Imaging of Los Angeles—Billing]; Harings Decl., Ex. 19
[Subpoena issued to California Hospital Medical Center – Medical]; Harings
Decl., Ex. 20 [Subpoena issued to California Hospital Medical Center –
Billing]; Harings Decl., Ex. 21 [Subpoena issued to California Hospital Medical
Center – Radiology]; Harings Decl., Ex. 22 [Subpoena issued to Los Angeles
General Medical Center – Medical]; Harings Decl., Ex. 23 [Subpoena issued to
Los Angeles General Medical Center – Billing]; Harings Decl., Ex. 24 [Subpoena
issued to Los Angeles General Medical Center – Radiology].)
The court modifies the subpoenas identified above to require that the
deponents shall only have to respond to document demand number 4 and are not
required to produce documents responsive to, or to comply with, any other
request. The court finds that the other
demands are overbroad because (1) they
request information that is not relevant to the subject matter of the action or
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2)
they request documents that are protected by Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy and
are not limited to the physical or mental conditions which Plaintiffs have put
in issue in this action.
The court denies as moot Plaintiffs’ motion to quash Defendant’s
Notice of Taking Remote Deposition of Cynthia Cooks because the court issued an
order granting in part Defendant’s motion to compel Cynthia Cooks’s deposition
on October 14, 2024. (Harings Decl., Ex.
25 [Notice of Depo. to Cooks]; Oct. 14, 2024 Order, pp. 3:25-4:8.)
The court (1) denies Plaintiffs’
motion to quash the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and to Testify
as a Witness served on Officer Juan Gonzalez, and (2) grants Plaintiffs’ motion
to quash the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Documents and Things served
on Officer Juan Gonzalez because the document request is overbroad since it
requests information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action or
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.1, subd. (a), 2017.010; Harings Decl., Ex. 26.)
The court denies Plaintiffs’ motion
to quash the Notice of Taking Remote Deposition of Sajeeda Tabassum.
Second, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for an order requiring
Defendant “to disclose all contracts between [Defendant] and/or its attorneys
of records, and any other individual or entity who is financing all or part of
this action” because section 2025.220 states only that a notice of deposition
shall include “[a] statement disclosing the existence of a contract, if any is
known to the noticing party, between the noticing and a third party who is
financing all or part of the action and either of the following for any service
beyond the noticed deposition: [¶] (i) The deposition officer. [¶]
(ii) The entity providing the services of the deposition officer.” (Not. of Mot., p. 2:15-17; Code Civ. Proc., §
2025.220, subd. (8)(A).) Thus, this
statute does not require that Defendant disclose any contracts between itself
and any individual or entity that is financing this action, but requires
Defendant to disclose any contracts between itself and any individual or entity
that is financing the action, on the one hand, and the deposition officer or
entity providing the services of a deposition officer, on the other hand.
Third, the court finds that Defendant opposed this motion without
substantial justification and that one or more of the requirements of each of
the Deposition Subpoenas for the Production of Business Records that the court
has quashed or modified (as set forth above) was oppressive, and therefore
grants Plaintiffs’ request for an award of reasonable expenses incurred in
making this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1987.2, subd. (a).) The court finds that
$5,000 (10 hours x an hourly rate of $500 per hour) is a reasonable amount of
monetary sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.
Finally, the court is concerned about the tone and content of certain
remarks made by Plaintiffs’ counsel, which include disparaging remarks, taunts,
and insults against Defendant’s counsel, and unprofessional references to
Defendant’s counsel’s first name. (Stern
Decl., Ex. 13, pp. 1, 2.) The court
finds that such remarks are distracting from the merits of the issues and
arguments presented, are not persuasive advocacy, and have no place in written
or oral submissions, presentations, or communications made to the court or to
other parties or counsel in this litigation. As the court states in
section 1 of its “Courtroom Information for Department 53” posted on the
court’s website, “[t]he court places a very high value on civility, courtesy,
and professionalism in the practice of law and the judicial process.¿ The court
expects all attorneys and parties to treat each other, witnesses, jurors, court
personnel, the court, and others with the highest level of civility, courtesy,
and professionalism, both inside and outside the courtroom.” The court
expects all parties, attorneys, and other participants in this litigation to
govern their conduct accordingly.
ORDER
The court grants in part plaintiffs Annette Turner and Tammy Davis’s
motion to quash, for sanctions, and for order of disclosure of entities
financing the action as follows.
The court orders that the Deposition
Subpoena for the Production of Business Records served on LAPD Discovery
Section – Subpoena Duces Tecum Processing Unit, as attached to the declaration
of Annette Harings as Exhibit 1, is quashed.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on Los Angeles General Medical Center – Medical, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 2, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 3. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply with any other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on Los Angeles General Medical Center – Billing, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 3, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 3. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply with any other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on Los Angeles General Medical Center – Radiology, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 4, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 3. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply with any other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on ELADH, L.P., c/o CT Corporation System, as attached
to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 5, is modified to require the
deponent only to respond to document demand number 3. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply with any other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on H. Claude Hudson Comprehensive Health Center –
Radiology, as attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 6, is
modified to require the deponent only to respond to document demand number
2. The deponent is not required to
respond to or comply with the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on CVS Pharmacy, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 7, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition
Subpoena for the Production of Business Records served on Department of
Healthcare Services, as attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as
Exhibit 8, is quashed.
The court orders that the Deposition
Subpoena for the Production of Business Records served on LAPD Discovery
Section – Subpoena Duces Tecum Processing Unit, as attached to the declaration
of Annette Harings as Exhibit 9, is quashed.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on United Medical Imaging of Los Angeles – Billing, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 11, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on Avita Pharmacy, as attached to the declaration of
Annette Harings as Exhibit 16, is modified to require the deponent only to
respond to document demand number 4. The
deponent is not required to respond to or comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on United Medical Imaging of Los Angeles – Billing, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 17, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition
Subpoena for the Production of Business Records served on Department of
Healthcare Services, as attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as
Exhibit 18, is quashed.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on California Hospital Medical Center – Medical, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 19, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on California Hospital Medical Center – Billing, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 20, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on California Hospital Medical Center – Radiology, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 21, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on Los Angeles General Medical Center – Medical, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 22, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on Los Angeles General Medical Center – Billing, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 23, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records served on Los Angeles General Medical Center – Radiology, as
attached to the declaration of Annette Harings as Exhibit 24, is modified to
require the deponent only to respond to document demand number 4. The deponent is not required to respond to or
comply any the other document demand.
The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of
Business Records (but not the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance)
served on Officer Juan Gonzalez, as attached to the declaration of Annette
Harings as Exhibit 26, is quashed.
The court orders defendant AIDS
Healthcare Foundation to pay to plaintiffs Annette Turner and Tammy Davis attorney’s
fees in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days of the date of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)
The court denies all other relief
requested.
The court orders plaintiffs Annette
Turner and Tammy Davis to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court