Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV01426, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01426    Hearing Date: May 13, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

LEONAR HAYRABIDIAN HAJIABADI, Plaintiff, vs. VIRGINIA ALDRIDGE, and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 23GDCV01426 Hearing Date: May 13, 2024 Time: 9:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff LEONAR HAYRABIDIAN HAJIABADI

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On or about January 1, 2022, Plaintiff and defendant Virginia Aldridge were in a car accident. Plaintiff brought this action against defendant asserting causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

Defendant issued third party subpoenas to Café Bravo, Uber Technologies, and ASAP Pharmacy. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash on March 22, 2024. No opposition has been filed.

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. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.)

The burden is on the party seeking constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.)

If an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the “least intrusive means” to satisfy the interest. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to quash subpoenas served on Café Bravo; Uber Technologies, Inc.; and ASAP Pharmacy because the subject subpoenas and supporting affidavits seek documents which are irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff argues that the information the subpoenas seek violates plaintiff’s right to privacy in his medical records, history, and information and/or pharmaceutical, psychological, psychiatric, and/or psychotherapy records, history, and information.

Plaintiff also argues that the subpoenas seek record unrelated to plaintiff’s injuries, conditions, and body parts at issue in the present case. Plaintiff requests, in the alternative, for the court to issue an order limiting the subpoena to the relevant body parts as identified in plaintiff’s response to form interrogatory no. 6.2: the neck, back, right arm, and right shoulder.

Plaintiff’s objections seem to miss the point. The subpoenas at issue seek documents related to plaintiff’s employment with Café Bravo; Uber Technologies, Inc.; and ASAP Pharmacy from January 19, 2012 to the present. (Decl. of John Ksajikian, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s

arguments based on physician-patient privilege and/or psychotherapist-patient privilege are wholly inapposite.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoenas