Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV42107, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV42107 Hearing Date: December 12, 2022 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The Court denies the request to quash
the subpoenas entirely; instead, the Court will modify the subpoenas and orders
that they compel the production of Plaintiff’s medical, billing and imaging records
only as it relates to the injuries discussed above.
Legal Standard
When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a
witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or
other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon
motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose
personal records are sought, 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 and conditions as the court may specify. (See Code Civ. Proc. §
1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15
Cal.2d 206.)
The
court can make an order quashing or modifying a subpoena as necessary to
protect a person from “unreasonable or oppressive demands, including
unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the
person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might
reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or
facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the
subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible
evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves
for an order quashing Defendant’s subpoenas for all of Plaintiff’s medical
records, arguing that they overly broad as to time and scope, invade
Plaintiff’s constitutional right of privacy and the subpoenaed items are not
relevant to this case.
On October 17, 2022, Defendant served deposition
subpoenas seeking Plaintiff’s entire medical, billing and radiology
records for a ten-year period from Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital, Heritage Sierra
Medical Group, Verio Health Inc., and Walmart stores seeking pharmacy records.
(Bartell Decl., Exhs. A-F.) Further, on October 26, 2022, Defendant served
Henry Mayo Newhall Urgent Care more subpoenas seeking medical, billing and
radiology records for a span of 10 years. (Id., Exhs. G-I.)
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.)
In
determining whether the privacy rights outweigh the need for the disclosure,
the court employs a balancing test. Constitutional
rights are only abridged where there is a compelling public
interest. (White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d
757, 775.) “If the invasion of privacy is serious, then the court must
balance the privacy interest at stake against other competing interests, which
include the interest of the requesting party, fairness to litigants in
conducting the litigation, and the consequences of granting or restricting
access to the information.” (Snibbe v. Superior
Court (2014) 224
Cal.App.4th 184, 194.) The party seeking
disclosure must show that the information is directly relevant to the lawsuit,
essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit, and the need for the
disclosure outweighs the privacy interests that
are involved. (Alch v. Superior
Court (2008) 165
Cal.App.4th 1412, 1428. )
The court may also take into account whether less intrusive means exist to
obtain the information. (Life
Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197
Cal.App.4th 640,
655-56.)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff alleges a
multitude of injuries from the incident including injuries and ongoing pain to
his upper body, back, and head. (Khachatourians Decl., Exh. B.) He also claims
Defendants negligently caused the incident. Furthermore, Plaintiff produced
medical records during discovery to support his claims. As part of Defendants’
effort to gather evidence and investigate these claims, Defendants issued
subpoenas to the medical providers identified in Plaintiff’s discovery
responses and production. Defendants argue that each of the subpoenas are reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding
Plaintiff’s claims that he sustained injury by Defendants’ awning, sought
treatment thereafter, and did not have preexisting issues. Furthermore, none of
the requests can be construed as overbroad; the subpoenas are sufficiently
limited in time – 10 years – and they relate to medical records, billing, and
imaging studies.
“Mere speculation
as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to
some substantive issue does not suffice” for showing direct relevance as to
private information sought in discovery. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992)
7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017-1020.) California’s Constitutional right to privacy
protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or
sensitive information regarding one’s personal life. (Britt, supra, 20
Cal.3d 844, 855-856.) Here, Plaintiff has a legally protected
privacy interest in his medical records. However, because Plaintiff has alleged
that Defendant has caused injuries to specific parts of his body, he has put
only those body parts at issue in this case. Moreover, while Defendants argue
that Plaintiff’s injuries may be due to pre-existing issues, they do not
provide any explanation as to why this is so.
Nevertheless, Defendant even argues that Plaintiff has put the specific
body parts that were injured at issue and thus, Defendant will be able to
explore the medical records it seeks with a narrowed subpoena, relating to
Plaintiff’s head, upper body, and back.
In addition, the
Court finds that the subpoenas should be narrowed to a five-year time-period.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the
subpoenas for medical, billing and imaging records should be narrowed to the
body parts at issue in this case, i.e., Plaintiff’s upper body, and back and to
a five-year time period. Allowing broader discovery
would amount to discovery of irrelevant and private information. Thus,
Plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoena is granted in part and denied in part.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court denies the
request to quash the subpoenas entirely; instead, the Court will modify the
subpoenas and orders that they compel the production of Plaintiff’s medical,
billing and imaging records only as it relates to the injuries discussed above.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.