Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV21302, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21302 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s motion to quash the
deposition subpoena is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant
Target Corporation and counsel of record Gabriella Pedone are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of
$585 with 30 days of this order.
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, arguing that Defendant’s subpoenas
are overbroad and invade Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy.
As an
initial matter, Plaintiff argues that Defendant
has failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3.
Code of Civil
Procedure section 1985.3 provides:
Prior to the date
called for in the subpoena duces tecum for the
production of personal records, the subpoenaing party shall serve or cause
to be served on the consumer whose records are being sought a copy of the
subpoena duces tecum, of the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena,
if any, and of the notice described in subdivision (e), and proof of service as
indicated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c). This service shall be made as
follows:
(1)¿To the
consumer personally, or at his or her last known address, or in accordance with
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 3, or, if he or
she is a party, to his or her attorney of record.
(Code of Civ.
Proc. § 1985.3(b).)
Pursuant to
section 1985.3, subdivision (g), “[a]ny consumer whose personal records are sought
by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this
subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a
motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum.”
Section 1985.3, subdivision (k), provides that “[f]ailure to comply with
this section shall be sufficient basis for the witness to refuse to produce the
personal records sought by [the subpoena].”
Defendant’s
deposition officer purported to serve the subpoenas seeking Plaintiff’s medical
records (without limitation) by serving Plaintiff’s counsel Pietz &
Shahriari, LLP at the following address: 9354 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 310, Beverly
Hills CA 90212. See Exh. A at 5 (proof of service). However, Plaintiff’s
counsel has never been affiliated with this address. Plaintiff’s counsel’s
address of record in this action is and has always been 6700 S. Centinela Ave.,
2nd Floor, Culver City, CA 90230. (See Shahriari Decl., ¶ 3; see also
Plaintiff’s Complaint at 1.)
Defendant has not
filed an opposition to dispute this. As such, the Court finds the subpoena
should be quashed because Defendant failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 by serving Plaintiff’s
counsel at an incorrect address. The Court will address the merits of
Plaintiff’s motion for the sake of thoroughness.
Defendant served deposition
subpoenas seeking: “Any and all documents, paper and digital records pertaining
to care, treatment and examination, including but not limited to, all office,
emergency room, urgent care, hospital inpatient/outpatient charts and reports,
consultation, examination reports, sign-in sheets, handwritten notes, radiology
reports, labs and tests results, prescriptions , physical and occupational
therapy records, color photographs, patient information sheets, documents in
the file from the other healthcare providers from first date to the present,
pertaining to [Plaintiff.]”
(Id., Ex. 3.)
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.)
“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 her medical records. However, because Plaintiff has alleged
that Defendant has caused injuries to specific parts of her body, she has put
only those body parts at issue in this case.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the
subpoenas should be narrowed to the body parts at issue in this case, i.e.,
Plaintiff’s right leg, and extend to seven years before the incident. Allowing
broader discovery would amount to discovery of irrelevant and private information.
Sanctions
Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subd. a, the Court
may award sanctions “if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad
faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the
requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”
The Court finds that sanctions against Defendant are
warranted. However, the Court reduces the amount requested due to the
simplicity of the motion. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Defendant
and her attorney of record Gabriella
Pedone, jointly and severally, in the amount of $585 (1 hour at $525 per
hour, plus $60 in filing fees.) Monetary sanctions are ordered to be paid
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
quash the deposition subpoena is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is GRANTED.
Defendant Target and counsel of record Gabriella Pedone are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of
$585 with 30 days of this order.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.