Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV07012, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07012    Hearing Date: October 1, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 10-1-24

Case #23STCV07012

Trial Date: 7-14-25 c/f 12-9-24

MEDICAL SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Alhambra Police Department

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Kafshi Bennet, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Medical Records

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On an uncertain date, Plaintiff Kafshi Bennet was involuntarily detained under Health and Safety Code section 5150. The placement apparently arose from a series of interactions with Defendant, the Alhambra Police Department.

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint for “Violation of Civil Rights, and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.” On June 26, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the complaint with 60 days leave to amend.

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a first amended complaint for False Imprisonment/False Arrest, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Interference with Rights Secured by the Constitution and/or Laws of the State of California, Multiple Violations of Civil Rights pursuant to 42 USC 1983, and Respondeat Superior. The first amended complaint also includes a copy of an October 25, 2023, filed claim for damages.

On January 2, 2024, the court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint due to the filing of the first amended complaint 76 days after the order sustaining the demurrer (16 days more than the 60 days granted for leave to amend). Defendant answered the first amended complaint on January 31, 2024.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Alhambra Police Department moves to compel compliance with medical records subpoena served on third party Exodus Recovery. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. Alhambra Police Department filed a notice of non-opposition.

Prior to the filing of the motion, Alhambra Police Department requested HIPPA releases, which Plaintiff refused to execute. Subpoenas were subsequently served on the medical provider, and denied on the basis of lack of authorization. The instant motion was subsequently filed. [Declaration of Yelena Bakman, ¶¶ 4-11, Ex. A-C.]

“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) ... may make an order … directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

“[T]he mere filing of a lawsuit does not trigger application of the patient-litigant exception.” (Patterson v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 927, 930.) A patient may continue to exercise a reasonable expectation of privacy of their medical information if the information is not directly relevant to a particular condition the patient placed in issue. (California Consumer Health Care Council v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 21, 31.) “‘The patient thus is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific mental or emotional injury; the scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.’” (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.)

Plaintiff’s emotional medical state was placed in issue through the filing of the subject action and damages claim, thereby providing Alhambra Police Department with the right to examine Plaintiff’s medical history prior to, during and after the time of the incident(s). It is presumed from the discovery responses that at least some of the subject records directly relate to the anguish caused by the underlying incidents. Plaintiff presents no opposition otherwise seeking to limit production or other privileges. (In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 439; Patterson v. Superior Court, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at pp. 931-932; see Evid. Code, § 1016, subd. (a).)

The court finds no reasonable alternatives for discovery of the information exists. Defendant therefore presents a basis for production of the records. The unopposed motion to compel compliance with the subpoena is therefore GRANTED. Records are limited to production relating directly the subject action (e.g. subsequent to the incident), but may include prior records for purposes of establishing noticeable changes following the course of events, if applicable. Any range of records shall not exceed five years prior to the first claim.

Alhambra Police Department to arrange for service, compliance and production of the records pursuant to the order compelling production pursuant to the subpoenas.

Alhambra Police Department makes no request for sanctions. “[I]n making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, 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.)

Trial set for July 14, 2025.

Defendant to provide notice.