Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV21262, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21262 Hearing Date: January 3, 2023 Dept: 29
Wayneider Singh Anand v. City of La Canada
Flintridge
Tuesday, January 3, 2023
CASE NUMBER: 22STCV21262
OPPOSED
Motions to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena for Medical Records filed by
Plaintiffs Wayneider Singh Anand, M.S.A., R.S.A., and S.S.A.
Background
On June 29, 2022, Plaintiffs Wayneider Singh
Anand, and minors M.S.A., R.S.A., and S.S.A. filed a complaint against
Defendants City of La Cañada, Emma Mirzaian and Edwin Baltazar for dangerous
condition of public property, negligence and wrongful death. Plaintiffs’
decedent, Dolly Anand, 42, the wife and mother of Plaintiffs, was a pedestrian struck
by Defendant Mirzaian as she lawfully used a crosswalk in the City of La
Can~ada Flintridge. As a result, decedent sustained catastrophic closed head
trauma (facial and skull fractures, severe brain injury), which ultimately
caused her death approximately sixty-five hours after the collision.
On November 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this
motion to quash Defendant City’s subpoenas for medical records. On December 19,
2022, Defendant filed an opposition. On December 27, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a
reply.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Plaintiff moves for an order quashing
Defendant’s subpoenas for all of Plaintiff’s medical and imaging records,
arguing the subpoenas are overbroad as to scope and time and invade decedent’s
privacy rights.
Opposing
Arguments
The City seeks the Decedent's medical
and radiology records to ascertain the
Decedent's health condition, injuries,
and treaters prior to the subject incident. Even though the Decedent was a
pedestrian in this incident, Plaintiffs are claiming serious injuries,
including death. Plaintiffs have omitted any mention of the Decedent's medical
history and whether she had a condition that would have a life-limiting and
would have affected future loss of income and financial support, which are
directly relevant as to the instant lawsuit.
Reply Arguments
Defendant’s subpoenas are for the purpose of
engaging in a fishing expedition into Decedent’s health condition prior to the
incident without limitation.
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
Plaintiffs move
for an order quashing Defendant’s subpoenas, arguing that Defendant’s subpoenas
are overbroad as to scope and time and invade decedent’s constitutional right
to privacy.
Defendant served deposition
subpoenas seeking: “Any and all records, documents, medical reports, including
doctor's entries, nurse's notes, progress reports, x-ray reports, MRI reports,
lab reports, physical therapy records, case history, emergency records,
diagnosis, prognosis, condition, admit and discharge records from first date of
treatment to the present.
Complete radiological Images of
any sort from the first date of treatment to the present, including but not
limited to any items that may be stored digitally and/or electronically:
x-rays, MRl's, CT's, myelograms, tomograms, MRA's, PET scans, CAT scans,
fluoroscopy, documents including sign-out sheets or communications which
demonstrate that any Items were checked out from or removed from your facility,
radiology reports, x-ray reports, MRI reports, CT reports, myelogram reports,
and any other radiology reports. All approved radiological images must be
produced on a DICOM compliant CD. In the event a DICOM compliant CD is not
available, radiological images may be produced on film. Prior to duplication,
please provide your production cost and a breakdown of all radiology images in
your possession, custody, or control. All emails between physicians and the
patient regarding physical complaints, symptoms, and treatment, including
secure messages.”
Additionally, another subpoena requests:
“Any and all records, documents, medical reports, including doctor's entries,
nurse's notes, progress reports, x-ray reports, MRI reports, lab reports,
physical therapy records, case history, emergency records, diagnosis,
prognosis, condition, admit and discharge records from first date of treatment
to the present.
Complete radiological images of any sort from the
first date of treatment to the present, including but not limited to any items
that may be stored digitally and/or electronically: x-rays, MRl's, CT's,
myelograms, tomograms, MRA's, PET scans, CAT scans, fluoroscopy, documents
including sign-out sheets or communications which demonstrate that any items
were checked out from or removed from your facility, radiology reports, x-ray
reports, MRI reports, CT reports, myelogram reports, and any other radiology
reports. All approved radiological images must be produced on a DICOM compliant
CD. In the event a DICOM compliant CD is not available, radiological images may
be produced on film. Prior to duplication, please provide your production cost
and a breakdown of all radiology images in your possession, custody, or
control. All emails between physicians and the patient regarding physical
complaints, symptoms, and treatment, including secure messages.
To include any and all records from Amal Obaid, M.D.”
(Conroy Decl., Ex. A.)
The right of privacy of
individuals is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I,
§ 1.) However, this right is not absolute. This right
only “protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against
a serious invasion.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007)
40 Cal.4th 360, 370.) Accordingly, a party asserting a right to privacy must
establish three threshold requirements: (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 (citing Hill v. National Collegiate
Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-40).)
In response, the party seeking
the privacy-protected information may raise whatever legitimate and important
countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection
may identify alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures
that would diminish the loss of privacy. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552.) A
court must then balance these competing considerations. (Ibid.) Under this
balancing test, a compelling interest is required to justify an obvious
invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy. (Id. at 556.)
However, whenever lesser interests are at stake, “the strength of the countervailing
interest sufficient to warrant disclosure of private information var[ies]
according to the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of
the invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures.”
(Ibid.)
Plaintiff has satisfied all
three parts of the Hill test.
First, it is well-settled that medical records carry
a legally protected privacy interest. (Grafilo v. Wolfsohn (2019) 33
Cal.App.5th 1024, 1034.) “As one court explained in discussing the
examination of medical records vis-à-vis the right to privacy: the
information that may be recorded in a doctor’s files is broad-ranging.
The chronology of ailments and treatment is potentially sensitive.
Patients may disclose highly personal details of lifestyle and information
concerning sources of stress and anxiety. These are matters of great
sensitivity going to the core of the concerns for the privacy of information
about an individual.” (County of Los Angeles, 65 Cal.App.5th at
641–642.)
In Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859,
it was recognized that “the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a
partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of . . . privacy.” However,
the California Supreme Court held that “the scope of such ‘waiver’ must be narrowly
rather than expansively construed.” (Ibid.) In other
words, “while [a plaintiff] may not withhold information which relates to any
physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this
lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated
medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.”
(Ibid.) Therefore, it follows that a patient cannot reasonably
expect certain matters to remain private if they are related to the specific
issues that the patient has himself brought before a court. On the other
hand, it is objectively reasonable to expect health care records that are
unrelated to a current legal dispute to remain private.
The second part is satisfied because Plaintiffs have
not placed decedent’s entire medical records at issue. Plaintiffs thus maintain
an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Finally, this putative
intrusion is serious insofar as any disclosure of medical records to someone
outside the physician-patient relationship is serious.
Here, the subject subpoenas seek all documents, records,
and imaging pertaining to Decedent with no temporal limitation. Accordingly,
the Court limits the subpoenas for decedent’s medical and imaging records to
those records concerning decedent’s injuries in this case: closed head trauma
(facial and skull fractures, severe brain injury) and to a timeframe of five
years before the incident. And although
Defendant points to its right to mount an effective defense in the present case,
which the Court recognizes as an important competing interest, Defendant has
not successfully identified a legitimate interest that outweighs Plaintiff’s
right to privacy in her health care records.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the subpoenas should be
narrowed to the injuries at issue in this case, i.e., closed head trauma (facial and skull fractures, severe
brain injury) and limited
to five years before the incident. Allowing broader discovery would amount to
discovery of irrelevant and private information.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to
quash the deposition subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 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 Decedent’s
medical and radiology records only as it relates to the injuries at issue in
this case and to a timeframe of five years before the incident.