Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03330, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03330, Date: 2024-08-13 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 a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV03330 Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 Dept: G

Defendant Bruce Lane Renfrew’s Motion for an Order Quashing Subpoena for Records

Respondent: Plaintiff Mirella Angelica Briceno Zamora

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Bruce Lane Renfrew’s Motion for an Order Quashing Subpoena for Records is GRANTED IN PART.

The court limits Plaintiff Mirella Angelica Briceno Zamora’s Subpoena to copies of Defendant Bruce Lane Renfrew’s eyesight prescription and documentation of Defendant Bruce Lane Renfrew’s eyesight prescription changes issued anytime from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. In June 2023, Plaintiff Mirella Angelica Briceno Zamora was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Burce Lane Renfrew near East Longden Avenue and Peck Road in Irwindale.

On October 27, 2023, Briceno Zamora filed a complaint against Renfrew and Does 1-100, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On July 11, 2024, Renfrew filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for August 13, 2024, along with a case management conference/status conference re: ADR.

ANALYSIS

Renfrew moves to quash Briceno Zamora’s subpoena to Huntington Optometric Center for Renfrew’s medical records. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Renfrew’s motion in part.

Legal Standard

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.)

An individual’s right of privacy 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.)¿¿The responding party, 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 this standard is met, requesting party 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.)

Discussion

In this case, Briceno Zamora subpoenaed copies of Renfrew’s medical records, insurance records, and billing records from Renfrew’s optometrist for the last ten years. (Ahdoot Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) In moving to quash Briceno Zamora’s subpoena, Renfrew argues Renfrew has a legitimate privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in Renfrew’s medical records. (Motion, p. 5:4-6:1.) The court agrees. (See Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1070 [“[M]edical records are constitutionally private and statutorily confidential.”].) The court also agrees that this a serious intrusion as Briceno Zamora’s request a time span of the last ten years. Therefore, the burden is now on Briceno Zamora to demonstrate how the requested records are directly relevant to the present action.

Briceno Zamora argues these records are directly relevant to determining the state of Renfrew’s eyesight at the time of Renfrew’s collision with Briceno Zamora. (Opp., p. 5:20-7:6.) Briceno Zamora argues Renfrew put Renfrew’s eyesight at issue by admitting to the use of corrective lenses (Morhman Decl., Ex. 2, p. 32:24-33:5), claiming Renfrew did not see Briceno Zamora until it was too late despite a clear view of the intersection (Morhman Decl., Ex. 2, p. 38:16-22, 50:14-23), and suggesting Renfrew’s eyesight had improved (Morhman Decl., Ex. 2, p. 33:13-25). Furthermore, Briceno Zamora argues these records are necessary to determine if Renfrew’s glasses were the correct prescription strength at the time of the collision.

While the court agrees Renfrew’s eyesight and prescriptions for corrective lenses are directly relevant to determining whether Renfrew was negligent, the court finds the scope of the subpoena overly broad and unreasonable in its scope.

In a deposition taken May 15, 2024, Renfrew stated Renfrew’s prescription was last updated about a year ago (2023), although Renfrew was unable to recall the exact date. (Morhman Decl., Ex. 2, p. 33:16-25.) Renfrew was also unable to recall which prescription lenses Renfrew was using at the time of the collision with Briceno Zamora. (Morhman Decl., Ex. 2, p. 33:22-25.) Thus, the court finds the subpoena should be limitedin scope to the year in which the automobile collision took place. The court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s request for optometry records as far back as ten years is justified. Therefore the court limits the subpoena to the following time period: January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.

In addition, the court also limits the items requested to copies of Renfrew’s eyesight prescription and documentation of any eyesight prescription changes. The court strikes Plaintiff’s broad request for all other forms of communications and records.

Accordingly, Renfrew’s motion is GRANTED IN PART.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS IN PART Renfrew’s motion and limits Briceno Zamora’s subpoena to copies of Renfrew’s eyesight prescription and documentation of Renfrew’s eyesight prescription changes from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.