Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV46583, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46583    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 39

Mandana Nazar v. Shawn Yadidi, et al.

Case No. 21STCV46583

MOTION TO QUASH

            Plaintiffs Mandana Nazar and Fole, Inc. dba as “Suncare Medical Supplies” (“Suncare”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Shawn Yadidi, Promed Medical Supplies (“Promed”), and Navid Zad (collectively, “Defendants”) asserting 22 causes of action for employment-based claims, discrimination and sexual harassment, defamation and trade libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with existing and prospective contractual relationships, and unfair competition.  Shawn Yadidi and Promed filed a first amended cross-complaint against Plaintiffs asserting causes of action for civil conspiracy for fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair business practices.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to quash subpoenas issued to her treating physicians seeking medical records from January 1, 2020, to the present.  If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the Court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  In ruling on a motion to quash, “the Court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has a right of privacy in her medical records.  For this reason, the Court cannot order disclosure of the records of that activity, unless it determines that disclosure serves a compelling interest.  (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)

            In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants undermined her business, which caused or exacerbated her medical conditions.  Accordingly, Plaintiff has put her medical condition at issue.  A plaintiff who seeks to recover for personal injuries waives the physician-patient privilege to some extent, but does not waive the privilege with respect to the plaintiff’s lifetime medical history.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.)  However, Plaintiff fails to suggest any appropriate limitations on the subpoenas.  Nor can the Court envision any limitation, because Defendants are entitled to understand Plaintiff’s medical conditions at issue and explore alternative causes. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied.      

            2.         Plaintiff may file an ex parte application for reconsideration if she withdraws all claims for damages relating to her physical health.    

            3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.