Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV01510, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01510, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV01510 Hearing Date: October 11, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: October 11, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV01510

CASE NAME: Nicholas Nelson and Meghan Bailey v. Jazmin Ponce, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Nicholas Nelson and Meghan Bailey

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Jazmin Ponce and Jesus Ponce (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:¿ (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Records

(2) Request for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED in part.

(2) GRANTED in a lowered amount to be determined at oral argument. The Court wonders why there was no stipulation to the narrowing of the scope of the SDTs since it appears the defense concurred with the ten-year periods and the areas of the body limitations this motion sought

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff, Nicholas Nelson and Meghan Bailey (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Jazmin Ponce, Jesus Ponce, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. The complaint is based on a motor vehicle accident that allegedly took place when Defendants failed to yield a left turn and proceeded into the intersection, directly into the Plaintiffs’ vehicle. As a result of the incident, Plaintiffs note that they sustained injury to their vehicle and person.

On August 12, 2024, Plaintiffs note that Defendants served a deposition subpoena for production of business records through Unisource Discovery for any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff for nine (9) families including Kaiser Permanente Medical, Kaiser Permanente Billing/Insurance, Kaiser Permanente Radiology, SimonMed Imaging Medical/Billing/Insurance, SimonMed Imaging Radiology, Elite Sports Medicine Medical/Radiology, Elite Sports Medicine Billing/Insurance, Aminian, MD Medical/Radiology, and Aminian, MD Billing/Insurance. Plaintiffs argue that no only do the subpoenas request records from a time far predating the subject incident, but they also request any and all records pertaining to Plaintiff regardless of the reason Plaintiff interacted with these facilities for an indefinite period.

On August 20, 2024, Plaintiffs note that their counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendants and requested that the subpoena for medical records be limited to ten (10) years before the date of the subject accident to the present, and to the body parts claimed in this accident, as there is no relevancy in obtaining “any and all records” of Plaintiff for an indefinite period, including any and all times that preceded the incident. Plaintiffs further note that they requested that the subpoenas for billing records be limited to the date of the subject accident to the present, as there is no relevancy in obtaining each and every billing record, especially those which predate the subject incident.

On August 26, 2024, Plaintiffs note their counsel sent Defendants’ counsel email correspondence to follow-up regarding the meet and confer letter sent to Defendants’ counsel. On August 27, 2024, Plaintiffs note that Defendants’ counsel by email agreed to limit the subpoenas to the body parts affected by the subject incident and to a ten-year period. That same day, Plaintiffs note that their counsel sent a response agreeing to the ten-year period for medical/radiology records, and then asked Defendants’ counsel if they would agree to eliminate the subpoena for the insurance records entirely, and to limit the subpoena for medical bills from the date of the incident to the present.

Again, on September 11, 2024 and September 13, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel reached out to Defendants’ counsel attempting to meet and confer as to their subpoenas but note that no responses were provided. As of the date of the filing, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have still refused to limit the subpoenas to each of the nine facilities. Thus, Plaintiffs have brought this motion requesting this court quash and/or greatly narrow the scope of the subpoena, and to order Defendants pay sanctions for the fees and costs associated in filing the motion.

B. Procedural

On September 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Quash. To date, no opposition brief has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary. Code of Civil Procedure section 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

Plaintiffs note that the subpoena which Defendants issued on April 12, 2024 concern all medical and billing records for Plaintiff, and more specifically request:

Any and all itemized statements of charges and billing... regardless of treatment dates…” and “Any and all itemized statements of charges and billing… regardless of treatment dates; including all health insurance information and claim forms; medical bills, medical billing records, liens, explanation of benefits statements, correspondence relating to billing, records showing write-offs of amounts billed, and records of payment by insurance carriers, governmental entities and/or any other person or entity

(Declaration of Muhammad Ali, Esq. (“Ali Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exhibit 1.)

Plaintiffs argue that the subpoenas are wholly overbroad and not at all tailored to the issues in the case at bar. Plaintiffs further argue that said production would result in documents that are irrelevant to this matter and are protected by Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy.

This court notes that the filing of a lawsuit may be deemed as a waiver of privacy as to matters embraced by the action but notes that the scope of said privacy waiver “must be narrowly rather than expansively construed.” (see Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859.) Here, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ subpoenas are overbroad and should be quashed, or in the alternative, limited to post-date of loss and to Plaintiffs’ neck/cervical spine, lower back/lumbar and lower extremities, thoracic spine, and head as anything outside of this limitation is not relevant and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. The Court agrees with the latter.

As there is no opposition to analyze, the court orders the subpoenas to be modified in the following ways: (1) First, the subpoenas are to be modified to the original agreement between the parties, including limiting the medical records to only include the body parts claimed to be injured in this action, and for the ten-year time period; (2) The billing and insurance records are to be narrowed to bills and insurance coverage for records involving the relevant body parts listed as injured in the case at bar, and should be narrowed in time from the date of the incident to present.

C. Sanctions

Plaintiffs have also requested monetary sanctions be imposed as against Defendants’ counsel Kimberly Maxwell in the amount of $3,295. This amount is based on Ali’s declaration, noting that his hourly rate is $400, and the total amount of time spent on this matter took him approximately seven (7) hours. (Ali Decl., ¶ 8.) Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel notes that Plaintiff was required to file a first filing in the amount of $435 and $60 for the filing fee for this motion, for a total of $495. (Ali Decl., ¶ 9.) The Court notes that seven (7) hours is an unreasonable amount of time to spend on this type of motion where there was no opposition nor reply. The court also notes that Plaintiffs do not explain why the first filing fee should be recoverable. As such, after discussion during oral argument, the court notes that it will likely be awarding monetary sanctions, but in a lesser amount.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash is GRANTED in part, to be narrowed in scope as instructed by the Court above. Further, Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is tentatively GRANTED in a lesser amount to be determined during oral argument.

¿¿

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.