Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case 22CHCV00124 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff Peter Yaya entered the premises of Defendant SC Medical, Inc. dba AFC Urgent Care of Valencia for medical treatment. Plaintiff maintains that a deviated septum interferes with his breathing, and therefore elects to avoid wearing a mask. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s objections to wearing a mask, Plaintiff was told a mask was required for any treatment. Plaintiff declined and asked that his paperwork be returned.

Plaintiff alleges his medical condition constitutes a disability, and the denial of service violated the right of equal access to the facility. The denial of service led to delayed treatment.

On December 28, 2021, Plaintiff mailed a letter to “American Family Care Corporate headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama outlining the events, and asked for a resolution of the matter and that appropriate action be taken. Plaintiff received a response… [threatening] Plaintiff ‘with an aggressive cross-complaint’ and ‘action for malicious prosecution.’”

On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint for Violation of Civil Liberties (first and second causes of action), Patients Bill of Rights Violations, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Defendant answered on April 1, 2022.

Plaintiff Peter Yaya moves to quash a subpoena for medical records from third parties Town Center Family Health, Doroty Wang, M.D., Resolution Advanced Imaging Center, Resolution Advanced Imaging Center-Billing, Dignity Healthcare Northridge Family Medicine, Dignity Health Medical Foundation-Billing, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Dr. Dewey Pillai, LA. Care Health Plan, and Department of Health Care Services/Medi-Cal. Plaintiff challegnes the subpoenas on grounds that Defendant seeks irrelevant information, the requests are overly burdensome, and the requests violate privacy rights. Plaintiff maintains that redacted copies of “medical records” have been provided, and further production remains unjustified.

Defendant in opposition maintains the medical records are discoverable, and Plaintiff may not pick and choose what to present for discovery. Defendant maintains the records are relevant in that Plaintiff placed his physical and emotional condition at issue with the complaint.

Plaintiff in reply maintains the subpoenas seek duplicate copies of records previously produced, and reiterates the lack of entitlement to certain records on grounds of privacy and relevance. Plaintiff also criticizes the lack of any requirement for redaction of records.[1]

“If 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, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), 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 or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.”

A party may move to quash a subpoena on grounds of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a), (b)(3).) The objecting party has the burden to file evidence of the preliminary facts establishing a privilege exists. (HLC Properties, Limited v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 54, 59.) The court finds the subject medical records constitute a privacy protected item. Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintains a physical medical condition constituting a basis of disability, as well as emotional distress damages as a result of denied treatment. Plaintiff therefore placed both physical and mental health at issue, which justifiably prompted the subpoenas.

A plaintiff is “‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they 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.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) “‘The party seeking the constitutionally protected information has the burden of establishing that the information sought is directly relevant to the claims. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (See Barrenda L. v. Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 794, 801-802.) The standard for good cause requires the moving party to produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) “[A]n implicit waiver of a party's constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff's claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit… [¶] … On occasion her privacy interests may have to give way to her opponent's right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Id. at p. 842.)

The court finds no reasonable alternatives for discovery of the information. Defendant therefore presents a basis for production of the records. The motion to quash the subpoenas in their entirety is therefore DENIED.

The court however limits production to records directly related the subject alleged medically induced disability, subsequent treatment provided after the denial of service, and any records relating to prior and post-mental health potentially causing and/or aggravating the emotional anguish claims. It’s not clear from the motion, opposition, or reply what was produced, and what has been withheld. Because the court cannot determine any scope of prior production, consistent with court policy for medial record production, the court therefore orders production of all unredacted records for five years prior to the incident.

Plaintiff may not both bring claims to the court then selectively pick and chose through motions to quash and self-chosen redaction what will be subject to review. The court invites the parties to continue to meet and confer, which may include a shorter time frame for production, and withdrawal of subpoenas for previously produced records. Again, the court will not otherwise allow Plaintiff to decide the limitations of production on claims placed before the court in the subject lawsuit, and adheres to court policy guidelines based upon standards for plaintiffs presenting physical and mental health claims presented to the court.

In summary, the court denies the motion to quash on any and all medical records following the incident up until the time Plaintiff continues to maintain damages as a result of the incident, which may include prior to trial. Discovery is limited to five years before the incident, subject to agreement between the parties for a shorter time frame and limited medical providers, where production previously occurred or Defendant accepts the records are not relevant to any claims.

[1]The court notes that Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash…” on October 18, 2022, which appears as a duplicate copy of the August 1, 2022 filed motion.