Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV06786, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV06786 Hearing Date: January 6, 2025 Dept: 29
Sliwoski v. Extended Stay America, Inc.
22STCV06786
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas
Tentative
The motion is granted in part.
Background
On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff
Molly Jean Sliwoski (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant
Extended Stay America, Inc.; ESA P Porfolio Operating Lessee, LLC (“ESAP”); and
Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for negligence and
premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that on September 29, 2020,
while Plaintiff was visiting a guest at Defendant’s premises, she sat on a
bench, the bench collapsed, and she sustained injuries as a result.
On March 30, 2022, ESAP filed
its answer.
On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff
amended the complaint to name ESH Hospitality, Inc., as Doe 1.
On September 19, 2022,
Defendant ESA Management, LLC (“ESAM”), erroneously sued as Extended Stay
America, Inc. and ESH Hospitality, Inc., filed its answer.
On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
On June 16, 2023, ESAP and ESAM
(collectively, “Defendants”) filed an answer to the FAC.
As it relates to the matter
currently before the Court, Defendants issued a number of subpoenas to Plaintiff’s
medical providers, withdrew them, and then on or about November 11, 2024, reissued
22 of the subpoenas. (Hennessey Decl., ¶¶
8-13 & Exh. C.)
On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash the 22 subpoenas. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.
On December 20, 2024, Defendants filed their opposition, and on December 27 Plaintiff filed a reply.
Legal
Standard
Code of Civil
Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), states:
“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. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate
to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including
unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
Section 1987.2, subdivision (a) provides that,
subject to certain exceptions not applicable here:
“[T]he 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).)
The California Constitution recognizes that
all people have “inalienable rights,” including “pursuing and obtaining safety,
happiness, and privacy.” (Cal. Const.,
art. 1, § 1.)
For purposes of discovery, 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
Defendants seek to obtain, by 22 subpoenas,
medical records of Plaintiff. The
subpoenas request the following records:
“[A]ny and all DOCUMENTS, including but not
limited to medical and billing records, admission records, office records,
emergency room records, mental and psychiatric records, sign-in sheets, medical
tests, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, photographs, patient care
reports, doctors' reports, paramedic reports, notes, memoranda, correspondence,
videotapes, audio tapes, test results, diagnosis of condition(s), radiology
records, films, x-rays, MRI’s, CT scans, radiological reports and test results,
billing statements, invoices, charges, records of adjustments and/or
write-offs, credits, explanation of benefits, balances due and insurance
records, and payments by or on behalf of PLAINTIFF Molly Jean Sliwoski; date of
birth 07/23/1974, and any other information pertaining to medical treatment
rendered to her, from September 29, 2015 to present.”
(Hennessey Decl., Exh. C.)
Plaintiff seeks to quash or limit the
Subpoena, arguing that they are overly broad in scope and violate Plaintiff’s
right to privacy. Defendants argue that
the subpoenas are properly focused and seeks highly relevant information, particularly
given that Plaintiff is seeking to recover significant damages for physical
injuries and pain and suffering.
California’s Constitutional right to privacy
protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or
sensitive information regarding one’s personal life.¿ (Britt v. Superior
Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)¿¿This includes, of course, medical
records.¿¿(E.g., John B. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198.) “The
public interest in preserving confidential … information generally outweighs a
private litigant's interest in obtaining that information.”¿ (Life
Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652,
disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3
Cal.5th 531.)
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 p. 556.)
Under
the Williams and Hill framework, Plaintiff here must first
establish a legally protected privacy interest and a reasonable expectation of
privacy. Plaintiff has done so. The
medical records covered by the subpoenas are protected by the right to privacy,
and Plaintiff has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in these
records.
Next, the subpoenas appear on their face to be a
serious intrusion into Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Medical records, including
those relating to the diagnosis and treatment of various conditions, are private,
personal, and sensitive.
At this
point, under Williams and Hill, Defendants must identify
the “legitimate and important countervailing interests” that disclosure would
serve. For example, the party seeking the discovery may attempt to show that
the records sought through a subpoena are “directly relevant” to the claims or
defenses in dispute and are “essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.”
(Lantz v. Super. Ct. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854.)
Defendants have made this showing, at least in
part. As Plaintiff’s counsel notes, Plaintiff
claims injuries to her right hand and wrist, her left hand and wrist, her lower
extremities, skin discoloration, and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. (Hennessey Decl., ¶ 3.) As a result, Plaintiff seeks to recover for a
variety of treatments, including the placement of a spinal cord stimulator and
lifelong medical care to manage her ongoing symptoms. (Id., ¶ 4.) Accordingly, information about injuries or
pain throughout Plaintiff’s body is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and
essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit.
Plaintiff seeks to quash the subpoenas in the
entirety or, in the alternative, to limit the scope. This secondary, alternative request for relief
is a feasible alternative that would serve the same legitimate and important interests
of Defendants while also diminishing Plaintiff’s loss of privacy.
Finally,
under the framework set out in Hill and reaffirmed in Williams,
the Court must balance the “competing considerations” of the serious intrusion
into Plaintiff’s privacy and Defendants’ legitimate need for the
information. This balancing of competing
considerations is necessarily a difficult and delicate task, and it is
particularly challenging here as the Court does not know what the subpoenaed records
and testimony will reveal. Nonetheless, the Court must and will conduct the
balancing based on the information before it in the record.
On balance, and after considering all of the
evidence in the record and the arguments of both sides, the Court finds that
Defendants’ legitimate interest in obtaining some, but not all, of the records
requested in the subpoenas outweighs Plaintiff’s substantial privacy
interest. Accordingly, the Court grants the
motion in part as follows:
First, the Court will quash in their entirety the
subpoenas directed to Advantage Psychological Services and Jeffrey Wilson,
Ph.D. These are mental health providers,
and Plaintiff has withdrawn and waived any claim for compensation for mental or
psychological injury other than garden variety pain and suffering. (Hennessey Decl., ¶¶ 8-10 & Exh. A.)
Second, although the Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s
injury claims are broad, they are not unlimited, and Defendants’ legitimate
need for discovery of Plaintiff’s private medical records extends no further
than the scope of Plaintiff’s injuries.
Accordingly, the Court will modify the remaining subpoenas to be limited
to complaints, diagnoses, or treatments relating to Plaintiff’s left hand and
wrist, right hand and wrist, upper extremities, lower extremities, Chronic
Regional Pain Syndrome, and chronic pain.
Third, for same reason, the Court will modify the remaining
subpoenas to strike the reference to “mental and psychiatric records.”
Fourth, for the same reason, the Court will modify
the remaining subpoenas to exclude, expressly, complaints, diagnoses, or
treatments relating to reproductive health issues.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is
denied. Although the motion is granted
in part (and denied in part), and although some of the requirements of the
subpoenas are overly broad, the Court exercises its discretion to decline to
award sanctions and finds that Defendants did not oppose the motion in bad
faith, that Defendants did not act without substantial justification, and that
the requirements of the subpoena are not oppressive.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion
to quash.
The Court QUASHES the subpoena to Advantage
Psychological Services.
The Court QUASHES the subpoena to Jeffrey
G. Wilson, Ph.D.
As
to the remaining subpoenas, the Court MODIFIES each subpoena as follows: (1) each
subpoena is limited to complaints,
diagnosis, or treatments relating to Plaintiff’s left hand and wrist, right
hand and wrist, upper extremities, lower extremities, Chronic Regional Pain
Syndrome, and chronic pain; (2) the reference to “mental and psychiatric
records” in each subpoena is stricken; (3) specifically excluded from each subpoena
are any and all records relating to reproductive health issues.
Moving Party is to give notice.