Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV19510, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19510    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

              Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoenas served on Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, Fey Chiropractic, Southern California Orthopedic Institute, and UCLA Health Systems is GRANTED.

              The subpoenas are modified to request records from April 1, 2019 through the present and are limited to records related to injuries/treatment to the brain, head, neck, legs, shoulders, and arms.

Legal Standard 

              Under CCP § 1987.1(a), "[i]f 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…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.” The court may also make orders “to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”¿(Ibid.)  

Discussion 

              Plaintiff requests the subpoena for production of business records be quashed and limited to April 1, 2019 through the present and be limited to the parts of Plaintiff’s body placed at issue in this litigation.  Based on the following, the Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoenas served on Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, Fey Chiropractic, Southern California Orthopedic Institute, and UCLA Health Systems.

              A person’s inalienable right to privacy, as guaranteed by the California and United States Constitutions, applies to their medical records.  (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 855-856; see also Palay v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 919, 931; John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198.)  A party’s medical records are also privileged under the patient-physician privilege. (See Hale v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1424.)  “Discovery of constitutionally protected information is on a par with discovery of privileged information.”  (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387.)  Where the party filing an action has arguably waived the privacy in their protected or privileged information by filing a lawsuit, the waiver must be narrowly construed such that discovery is only permitted of those matters directly relevant to the party’s claims. (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 858-859.)  Notwithstanding, the party still has privacy rights as to physical and mental conditions unrelated to the claimed injury.  (See id. at 864; Heller v. Norcal Mutual Insurance Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 44.)  

              Here, Defendant’s deposition subpoena seeks business records from the following: (1) Providence St. Joseph Medical Center; (2) Fey Chiropractic, (3) Southern California Orthopedic Institute, (4) UCLA Health Systems; and (5) psychological records from Lynn Ianni MD. Plaintiff states the motion is now moot with respect to Dr. Ianni because Plaintiff authorized Dr. Ianni to comply with the subpoena as written. (Reply at p. 1.)

              With respect to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, Fey Chiropractic, Southern California Orthopedic Institute, and UCLA Health Systems, the deposition subpoena requests:

              January 1,2012 - PRESENT: Any and all insurance claims, insurance policies, files,               repots, medical records, radiology records, radiology films, SOAP notes, vision/eye       doctor records, any and all itemized statements of the billing charges pertaining to the care, treatment and exanimation of the patient, including but not limited              to          payment history, including but not limited to, CD-ROM, tape drive documents        stored electronically or digitally, from the first date of treatment including the present. All billing records, up to and, itemized, floppy drive, hard drive, scanned               documents and all other statement of charges, payment transactions, billing               adjustments, billing write-offs, billing write-downs, billing write-ups from other               sources, including but not limited to, all charges, payment transactions, billing               adjustments regardless of source or date, including all bills sent to collections,               repair estimates, property damage reports, witness statements, color photographs, including but not limited to any and all documents of any kind and character,               pertaining to GERARD DUNN, DOB: l0/13/58

(Motion; Ex. 1.)

              It is undisputed that Plaintiff has put his medical history at issue by asserting he suffered injuries or received treatment to the brain, head, neck, legs, shoulders, and arms. For example, Plaintiff responded in Defendant’s Form Interrogatory 6.2:

              As a result of the subject incident, Plaintiff suffered the following injuries: (1) crush   injury with closed head trauma, (2) right patellar tendon rupture requiring surgical               repair, (3) right rotator cuff injury, (4) torn meniscus in the knee, (5) scalp               lacerations which required stapling, (6) left ear and left elbow lacerations which               required sutures, (7) whiplash, (8) post-traumatic stress disorder and (9) Injury to               left elbow and nerve pain shooting up arm. As a result of his injuries plaintiff was in               the hospital for approximately two weeks and could not drive for around three and      a half months. His knee necessitated twenty staples and he had to remain in a knee               brace for ten or eleven weeks.

(Opposition at p. 6; Ex. B.).

              However, Defendant has not shown a particularized need for Plaintiff’s entire medical records for the past 10 years. Plaintiff asserts limiting the scope to three years before the incident is less intrusive, and if something in those records shows a need to go back further, then Defendant will have proper facts to support such. Further, Defendant has failed to prove that records for parts of the body that are not at issue are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim or Defendant’s defense, i.e., that there is a nexus between Plaintiff’s injuries/treatment and damages that may be shown by an unrestricted search of medical records. Thus, the subpoena is, as worded, improperly broad and invades Plaintiff’s right of privacy. 

              Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoenas served on Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, Fey Chiropractic, Southern California Orthopedic Institute, and UCLA Health Systems is GRANTED.  

Conclusion 

              Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoenas served on Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, Fey Chiropractic, Southern California Orthopedic Institute, and UCLA Health Systems is GRANTED.

              The subpoenas are modified to request records from April 1, 2019 through the present and are limited to records related to injuries/treatment to the brain, head, neck, legs, shoulders, and arms.

Moving party to give notice.