Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV20144, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20144    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiff Robin Ryan.

TENTATIVE

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

The subpoenas are modified, as set forth below. 

With these modifications made, the motion to quash the subpoenas, as modified, is denied.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are denied.

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from an incident on June 24, 2020, in which Plaintiff Robin Ryan (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she fell and was severely injured as she attempted to sit on an unsecured bench.  Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on June 21, 2022, asserting a cause of action for negligence/premises liability against Defendants Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC, Kia of Carson, Will Amiri, and Does 1 through 50.

Defendants Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC, Kia of Carson, and Will Amiri (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their Answer on April 19, 2023.

On or about November 7, 2023, Defendants issued 27 subpoenas to medical providers seeking all medical and billing records pertaining to Plaintiff, without limitation to time or scope.  Multiple subpoenas were sent to each of eight entities (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center; Dr. M. Jay Jazayeri; Medcessity, Inc.; Samimi Orthopedic Group; Radiance Surgery Center; Cole Medical, Inc.; Medicare Regional, Office 9; and Blue Shield of California Promise Health Plan). 

An exchange of letters did not resolve the dispute.  On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash the subpoenas.  Defendants filed their opposition on February 1, and Plaintiff filed her reply on February 7.  

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.  

The California Constitution recognizes that all people have “inalienable rights,” including “pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”  (Cal. Const., art. 1, § 1.)

For discovery purposes, 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 subpoena, all of Plaintiff’s medical and billing records from eight health care providers, without limitation as to time or scope.  (Kim Decl., Exh. B.)  Plaintiff argues that these subpoenas are overly broad and violate her right to privacy.

In her (unverified) Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that in connection with the subject incident, she sustained “life-changing and debilitating injuries …, including but not limited to a shattered right kneecap/patella.”  (Complaint, ¶ 10.)  She alleged that she had suffered “injuries to her physical health, strength and activity, and shock and injury to her nervous system, all of which said injuries have caused, and continue to cause her great physical, mental, and nervous pain and suffering.”  (Id., ¶ 19.)

In a verified discovery response, Plaintiff stated:

“Responding Party suffered injuries to her right knee, including but not limited to a right knee cap/patella fracture.  Responding Party had a prior right knee meniscus repair in 2017 and a right total knee replacement in 2018.  Responding Party had an excellent recovery and outcome from her total knee replacement, which was injured, aggravated, and/or exacerbaged by the subject incident.  …  Treatment is ongoing and further assessments and diagnoses may be made.” 

(Kim Decl., Exh. A., Response to Form Interrogatory 6.2.)

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas violate her right to privacy.  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 such things as medical records, employment records, and financial information.¿¿(John B. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198 (medical records); Valley Bank of Nevada v. Super. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 (financial records); l Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Super. Ct. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345 (employment records); Board of Trustees v. Super. Ct. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526 (employment records).)

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. The subpoenas are unlimited in time and scope and seek information regarding medical care, insurance information, and financial matters, all of which 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, Defendant may attempt to show that the discovery sought is “directly relevant” to the claims or defenses in dispute and is “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.  Plaintiff claims that the accident caused her serious injuries to her right knee.  Some medical records regarding her right knee, both after the incident and before it (particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff had surgery to the same knee in 2017 and then a total knee replacement in 2018) is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.  But Defendants have not made that showing as to Plaintiff’s other medical records, for treatments or injuries or diseases or other maladies that she may have suffered going back for decades.  Medical records relating to Plaintiff’s right knee are directly relevant to the claims and defenses in dispute, and Defendant has a legitimate interest in obtaining those records.

Plaintiff has not identified any feasible alternatives that would serve the same interests and diminish the loss of privacy.  The parties now agree to limit the subpoenas to the period of January 1, 2010 to the present.  (Mot., at p. 10; Opp., at p. 5.)

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 Defendant’s 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 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 Defendant’s legitimate interest in obtaining the subpoenaed records, as limited in two respects – (1) pertaining to injuries to or treatment of Plaintiff’s right knee only and (2) for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present – outweighs Plaintiff’s substantial privacy interest.  Accordingly, the Court will limit the time period and scope of the subpoenas and, as modified, deny the motion to quash the subpoenas.

The Court also DENIES both parties’ requests for sanctions.  Although the Court disagrees with Defendants’ position, the Court finds that Defendants have acted with substantial justification (as has Plaintiff).

Finally, the Court notes Defendants’ concern that the allegations in the Complaint, broadly construed, could extend to physical injuries beyond Plaintiff’s right knee.  But Plaintiff’s verified discovery responses describe the injury as limited to her right knee.  Plaintiff must expect and assume that her verified discovery responses, as well as the statements of her counsel to the Court in this motion to quash (see Motion, at p. 2:13-14 [“Plaintiff’s claimed injury in this action is limited to only her: ‘right knee, including but not limited to a right knee cap/patella fracture.’”]), will limit the scope of the evidence of injury that she is permitted to present at or before trial.

CONCLUSION

The Court MODIFIES the 27 subpoenas at issue.

The Court MODIFIES the scope of the subpoenas as follows: each subpoena is limited to records relating to injuries to or treatments for Plaintiff’s right knee.

The court MODIFIES the time period of the subpoenas as follows: each subpoena is limited to the period of January 1, 2010 to the present.

With these modifications made, the Court DENIES the motion to quash the subpoenas as modified.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.