Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV43391, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV43391 Hearing Date: August 17, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The Court GRANTS the motion to quash the following five subpoenas: Advanced
Medical Supplies Enterprises, Inc. (Billing Records); Harbor Chiropractic Los
Angeles (Billing Records); VMC Medical Collections, Inc. (Billing Records);
F&M Radiology Medical Center, Inc. (Billing Records); and Innovative
Medical Management, Inc. (Billing Records).
As to the remaining ten subpoenas, the Court MODIFIES them
to be limited to records only concerning Plaintiff’s neck, left shoulder, and
back, and further MODIFIED them to be limited to records only from January 1, 2019
to the present and, with those limitations, otherwise DENIES the motion to
quash.
Background
On
November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Manuel Lopez Osorio (“Plaintiff”) filed this
action against Defendants Ashik B. Mostofa, Administrative Services
Cooperative, Inc., Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc., and Does 1 to 50, asserting
causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence, arising out
of an automobile collision on December 12, 2019.
The
Complaint alleges that as a result of the automobile collision, Plaintiff
sustained the following damages: “past and future pain and suffering/emotional
distress; past and future loss of earnings; past and future loss of earning
capacity; past and future medical expenses; past and future health care
expenses; past and future incident expenses; and past and future household
services.” (Compl., p. 5, the last paragraph.)
In discovery, Plaintiff attributed
to the accident injuries to his neck, left shoulder, and lower back. (Sarmiento Decl., Exh. B [responses to form
interrogatories], at 5-6, 9; Exh. E [transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition], at
75-76, 85.)
On or
about June 2, 2023, Defendants Ashik B. Mostofa and Administrative Services
Cooperative, Inc. (“Defendants”) issued 15 subpoenas: three separate subpoenas
(for billing records, medical records, and radiological records) to each of five
medical service providers.
On June
23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash these 15 subpoenas. On August 4, Defendants filed their
opposition. On August 10, Plaintiff
filed his reply.
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.)
There is no
requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating
a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (See id.)
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).)
Under Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1,
35-37, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected
privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given
circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id.) The party seeking the information may raise in
response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure
serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives
that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the
loss of privacy. A court must then
balance these competing considerations. (Id.
at 37–40.)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to quash 15 subpoenas
issued by Defendants:
(1) Advanced Medical Supplies Enterprises, Inc. (Medical
Records)
(2)
Advanced
Medical Supplies Enterprises, Inc. (Billing Records)
(3)
Advanced
Medical Supplies Enterprises, Inc. (Radiological Records)
(4)
Harbor
Chiropractic Los Angeles (Medical Records)
(5)
Harbor
Chiropractic Los Angeles (Billing Records)
(6)
Harbor
Chiropractic Los Angeles (Radiological Records)
(7)
VMC
Medical Collections, Inc. (Medical Records)
(8)
VMC
Medical Collections, Inc. (Billing Records)
(9)
VMC
Medical Collections, Inc.
(10)
F&M
Radiology Medical Center, Inc. (Medical Records)
(11)
F&M
Radiology Medical Center, Inc. (Billing Records)
(12)
F&M
Radiology Medical Center, Inc. (Radiological Records)
(13)
Innovative
Medical Management, Inc. (Medical Records)
(14)
Innovative
Medical Management, Inc. (Billing Records)
(15)
Innovative
Medical Management, Inc. (Radiological Records).
Defendants have stated that they will
withdraw subpoenas Numbers 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14 (the “billing records” subpoenas
to each entity). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
the motion to quash these subpoenas.
As to the remaining 10 subpoenas,
Plaintiff argues that these subpoenas impermissibly seek the production of his
private medical information.
In Williams
v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate
Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, and other cases, the California Supreme
Court has established “a framework for evaluating potential invasions of
privacy.” (Williams, supra, 3
Cal.5th at p. 552.) First, a party asserting a privacy right must establish “a
legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of
privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Id., citing Hill, supra, 7
Cal.4th at pp. 35-37.) In response, the party
seeking the information may raise “whatever legitimate and important
countervailing interests disclosure serves,” and “the party seeking protection
may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective
measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Id., citing Hill, supra, 7
Cal.4th at pp. 37-40.) The court must
then “balance these competing considerations.” (Ibid.)
The party seeking the information need not, however, establish a
“compelling interest” unless the disclosure would be “an obvious invasion of an
interest fundamental to personal autonomy.”
(Id. at 556.)
Defendants state that they are seeking
only the records relating to an incident that occurred in January 2019,
approximately 11 months before the automobile collision at issue in
this case.
The subpoenas, however, are not limited in time and are in this way
overly broad and impermissibly infringe upon Plaintiff’s right to medical
privacy. In balancing the Defendants’
legitimate need to conduct discovery against Plaintiff’s right to privacy, the
Court concludes that the subpoenas should be modified and limited in time to January
1, 2019 to the present.
In addition,
in this case, the injuries that Plaintiff attributes to the collision are to
his neck, left shoulder, and lower back.
(Sarmiento
Decl., Exh. B [responses to form interrogatories], at 5-6, 9; Exh. E [transcript
of Plaintiff’s deposition], at 75-76, 85.)
The subpoenas, however, are not limited to these body parts and are in
this way overly broad and impermissibly infringe upon Plaintiff’s right to
medical privacy. In balancing the Defendants’ legitimate need to conduct
discovery against Plaintiff’s right to privacy, the Court concludes that the
subpoenas should be modified and limited to records relating to Plaintiff’s
neck, left shoulder, and lower back.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion to quash the following five
subpoenas:
a) Advanced Medical Supplies Enterprises, Inc. (Billing
Records);
b) Harbor Chiropractic Los Angeles (Billing Records);
c) VMC Medical Collections, Inc. (Billing Records);
d) F&M Radiology Medical Center, Inc. (Billing Records);
and
e) Innovative Medical Management, Inc. (Billing Records).
As to the remaining subpoenas, listed below, the Court
MODIFIES the subpoenas to require production of records only relating to
Plaintiff’s neck, left shoulder, and lower back and further MODIFIES the
subpoenas to require production of records only for the time period of January
1, 2019 to the present. With these modification, the motion to quash
the ten subpoenas listed below is otherwise DENIED:
a) Advanced Medical Supplies Enterprises, Inc. (Medical
Records)
b)
Advanced
Medical Supplies Enterprises, Inc. (Radiological Records)
c)
Harbor
Chiropractic Los Angeles (Medical Records)
d)
Harbor
Chiropractic Los Angeles (Radiological Records)
e)
VMC
Medical Collections, Inc. (Medical Records)
f)
VMC
Medical Collections, Inc.
g)
F&M
Radiology Medical Center, Inc. (Medical Records)
h)
F&M
Radiology Medical Center, Inc. (Radiological Records)
i)
Innovative
Medical Management, Inc. (Medical Records)
j)
Innovative
Medical Management, Inc. (Radiological Records).
Moving
parties to give notice.