Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV00976, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00976, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00976 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: April 4, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00976

¿¿

CASE NAME: Andrea Quinones v. Rathaur Subway, Inc. dba Subway, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Andrea Quinones

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Kathleen R. Mastagni

TRIAL DATE: May 20, 2024

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Quash, or in the alternative, for a Protective Order, RE: Defendant’s Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Medical Records

(2) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED as to the Motion to Quash, without prejudice to new SDTs being issued with a narrowed scope of inquiry

(2) Request for Sanctions are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

This action was initiated on October 19, 2022, when Plaintiff, Andrea Quinones (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Rathaur Subway, Inc., Kathy Mastagni, and DOES 1 through 25. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; and (2) Premises Liability. On January 17, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Kathleen R. Mastagni (erroneously sued as Kathy Mastagni) (“Mastagni”), filed a Cross-Complaint for: (1) Implied Indemnity; (2) Express Indemnity; (3) Contribution; and (4) Declaratory Relief. Further, on February 24, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Rathaur Subway, Inc. (“Subway”) also filed a Cross-Complaint for: (1) Implied Indemnity; (2) Express Indemnity; (3) Contribution; and (4) Declaratory Relief.

This action arises from an alleged injury by Plaintiff that took place on December 27, 2021, where Plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck, right shoulder, and right arm due to a trip and fall incident at the premises located at 11916 Aviation Blvd., Inglewood, CA 90304.

On February 2, 2024, Defendant issued subpoenas to Beverly Tower Wilshire Advanced Imaging, Cedar-Sinai c/o CT Corporation System, Family Radiology, Inc., Gardena Hospital, Mink Radiologic Imaging, MRI Associates – Highland MRI, and Torrance Memorial Medical Center. Per Plaintiff’s motion papers, on February 13, 2024, Plaintiff initiated meet and confer efforts seeking for Defendant to withdraw or modify the subject subpoenas, requesting Defendant to respond by February 19, 2024, which the parties postponed to February 21, 2024, when counsel agreed to extend Defendant’s responses by an additional five (5) days and that the Motion to quash deadline would also be extended by an additional five (5) days. Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s counsel confirmed the extensions via email on February 21, 2024. When defense counsel declined to withdraw or modify the SDTs, this motion was filed.

B. Procedural

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Quash, and in the alternative, for a Protective Order. On March 21, 2024, Defendant, Kathleen R. Mastagni filed an opposition. On March 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

¿II. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary. Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 provides: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff argues that each subpoena to each respective medical provider seeks all of Plaintiff’s medical records, without regard to any medical condition, and which potentially seek records completely unrelated to the subject accident. As such, Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas should be quashed as they are overly broad and violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right of privacy. In opposition, Defendant Mastagni argues that plaintiff has misstated the scope of the subpoenas, as the subpoenas are limited to “all imaging records” including, “radiology reports, x-rays, MRI’s scans” and specifically excludes “medical records and billing.” However, in Plaintiff’s reply brief, Plaintiff notes that she does not object to the production of any records sought that actually relate to her injury due to the incident, but is only objecting to the production of medical records, including radiology records, that are not related to the body parts Plaintiff injured in the alleged incident giving rise to her Complaint in this case.

Here, the Court does not find that Defendant Mastagni’s justification to be lacking for refusing to limit the scope of the records being sought to the body parts Plaintiff is claiming injury to in the current case. Defendant Mastagni argues that given the nature of her alleged injuries, Defendant should be entitled to X-Rays or other images to provide insight into any prior injuries that Plaintiff has not disclosed or any other potential causes for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Defendant Mastagni contends that Plaintiff’s proposed limitation would exclude any imaging relevant prior injuries to body parts like the thoracic or lumbar spine as shown in Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation history. Particularly, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with joint dysfunction and arthritis in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral regions. The Court is confused as to how Defendant Mastagni is choosing to distinguish Britt v. Superior Court of San Diego (1978)20 Cal.3d 844, 864, when Defendant Mastagni clearly indicates on page 5 of her opposition, that: “[t]he requests in [Britt] were overbroad and captured all of the Plaintiff’s medical records rather than tailoring the request to the injuries at issue.” By Defendant Mastagni’s own analysis of the case in Britt, the requests must be tailored to the injuries at issue. Simply because Defendant Mastagni’s subpoenas do not request all medical records, does not mean that this case is distinguishable from Britt when Defendant Mastagni still refuses to tailor the subpoenas to the injures at issue in this case.

In this case, Defendant Mastagni contends that Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one, states that Plaintiff “experienced pain to her neck, right shoulder, and right arm. Further, Defendant Mastagni contends that she testified in her deposition that she tried to break her fall with her arm, and her chin hit the concrete. The justification is thin to seek any medical record, imaging or otherwise, of Plaintiff’s back or other portions of her body not being claimed in the alleged accident in this case. This Court finds that the imaging requests from the subpoena must be more narrowly tailored to the injuries being alleged in the case at bar. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash.

C. Sanctions

Filed concurrently with Plaintiff’s moving papers, Plaintiff also argues that she is entitled to monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,810. This amount is substantiated by counsel for Plaintiff, Nikta Yazdi’s declaration noting an hourly rate of $250, and the spending of three hours preparing the motion, and an anticipated 4 hours of drafting reply papers and appearing for the hearing on this motion, plus the $60 filing fee. While this Court believes that the amounts requested, as well as the hourly rate are reasonable, the Court declines to impose sanctions at this time because the defense has a good faith basis for seeking limited medical records relating to a different injury than Plaintiff is claiming in this case. The Court notes that Plaintiff may be inviting other restrictions on the scope of what she can claim in this case, and that future discovery including expert discovery may need to be evaluated for apportionment of disability, wage loss, non-economic damages, and other issues given what appear to be pre-existing medical conditions.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED, without prejudice to the health care providers being re-subpoenaed with a narrowed scope of the requested records. The Protective Order is mooted. Further, the Request for Monetary Sanctions is Denied. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.