Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 20STCV04748 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20STCV04748, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV04748 Hearing Date: January 12, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff Alicia Moreno/Santander’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical & Billing Records and Request for $1,110 in Sanctions against Defendant City of El Monte and/or Its Attorney of Record

Respondent: Defendant City of El Monte

Plaintiff Luis Martinez Moreno’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical & Billing Records and Request for $1,110 in Sanctions against Defendant City of El Monte and/or Its Attorney of Record

Respondent: Defendant City of El Monte

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Alicia Moreno/Santander’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical & Billing Records is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff Luis Martinez Moreno’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical & Billing Records is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action. On February 7, 2019, the son of Luis Martinez Moreno and Alicia Moreno/Santander (collectively, Plaintiffs) was hit and killed by a Metrolink train on Cogswell Road in the City of El Monte. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the City of El Monte (Defendant), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, County of Los Angeles, State of California acting by and through the California Department of Transportation, Metrolink acting by and through Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Jad Paul Lagana, and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) liability of public entities and public employees pursuant to Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, and 820; (2) dangerous condition of public property; (3) wrongful death; and (4) negligence.

On December 28, 2021, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, County of Los Angeles, the People of the State of California acting by and through the California Department of Transportation, Metrolink acting by and through Southern California Regional Rail Authority, and Roes 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) equitable indemnity, (2) apportionment and contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the present motions. Before filing the motions, Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel via email twice and Defendant’s counsel declined to withdraw the subpoenas. (Solis Decl., ¶ 4-9, Ex. 2-5.)

A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motions is set for January 12, 2023. A final status conference is set for June 5, 2023 and a jury trial is set for June 20, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs move to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoenas to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington for Plaintiffs’ mental health records and billing records. Plaintiffs also seek sanctions in the amount of $1,110 for each subpoena. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motions.

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, 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 such as unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

Medical and Billing Records

Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s subpoenas for their medical and mental health treatment records invade their privacy and are irrelevant because Plaintiffs do not seek economic damages and only seek noneconomic damages for loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support. The court agrees in part and disagrees in part with Plaintiffs’ argument.

The right of privacy of individuals is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.) In ruling on discovery motions, the Court must balance the privacy claims of the responding party with the requesting party’s need for the information. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718-722.)¿ Plaintiff, as the party asserting the right of privacy, bears the initial burden of demonstrating (1) a “legally protected privacy interest”; (2) an “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances”; and (3) a “threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (Williams).) If Plaintiff meets this standard, Defendant must then show that the requested documents are “directly relevant” to the litigation. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 858-859.)¿

“[P]laintiffs 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, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 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.)

In this case, Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s requests for all medical and billing records from January 1, 2015 to present are not directly relevant to the claims at issue in this case. Defendant contends such records are directly relevant to evaluate Plaintiffs’ noneconomic damages request that includes severe emotional distress. (Complaint, Prayer, ¶ 42.)

The court agrees that seeking noneconomic damages for severe emotional distress makes Plaintiffs’ mental condition relevant. (Id., at p. 839 [“[A] party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy.”].) However, the discoverability of Plaintiffs’ medical records is limited to those involving the medical condition in question and all of Plaintiffs’ past medical histories are not automatically open to scrutiny. (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 849.) Thus, a medical records request not narrowly drawn to seek medical records directly relevant to the claims at issue is overbroad and violates Plaintiffs’ privacy rights. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017-1018.)

Here, Defendant’s first request is limited to “any and all documents constituting, reflecting, or referring to any and all mental health counselling, evaluation, therapy, and treatment” of Plaintiffs. (Motion, Ex. 1.) The court finds this is sufficiently limited and directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claimed damages for severe emotional distress. However, Defendant’s second request for all medical billing charges and statements does not contain any such limits. (Motion, Ex. 1.) Thus, the court finds this second request is overbroad as it is not limited to medical billing records related to the claims at issue.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $1,110 for each of Defendant’s two subpoenas. The court declines to award sanctions.

Sanctions may be awarded here pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a), which provides:¿

[I]n making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under 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).)¿ ¿

Here, the court does not find either party acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to quash are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court limits the language of Defendant’s subpoenas as to each Plaintiff for medical billing records as follows:

“Any and all DOCUMENTS, including itemized statements of the billing charges and/or consolidated statement of benefits pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of the patient involving mental health counselling, evaluation, therapy, and treatment, including, but not limited to, CD rom, tape drive, floppy drive, hard drive, scanned documents and all other documents stored electronically or digitally, including e-mail, correspondence, all billing records, including, but not limited to payment history, payment and write-off records, any insurance billing or payments information, emergency room physicians bills, itemized statements of charges, payment transactions and procedure codes/CPT codes from all sources to include any computer generated billing and payment software that contains said information within any computer system pertaining to care and treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, condition, or discharge involving mental health counselling, evaluation, therapy, and treatment of [PLAINTIFF NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH], January 1, 2015, to present.”