Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV25934, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25934    Hearing Date: July 10, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Court modifies the subpoenas issued to West Star Physical Therapy; Congress Orthopedic Associates; Good Samaritan Hospital; Haas Spine & Orthopedics; and Precise Imaging to records relating to the body parts at issue.

The Court modifies the subpoenas issued to the Los Angeles Police Department to records relating to the incident in question.

The Court grants the motion to quash the subpoena issued to the Los Angeles Fire Department.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Background 

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff Robin Jean Zackery filed a Complaint against Defendant Oxford Grand, LLC.  On May 24, 2023, the Court issued an order (on the stipulation of the parties) granting leave for Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

In the Complaint and the FAC, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for premises liability and negligence arising out of an incident that occurred on August 26, 2020.  Plaintiff alleges she sustained injuries when she fell as a result of unsafe, unreasonable, hazardous, and/or defective conditions on Defendants' property.

Plaintiff claims that as a result of the incident, she suffered injuries to her left wrist, left big toe, neck, mid back, and lower back.  (Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 6:16-18; Moreno Decl., ¶¶ 23-24 & Exh. 14.)  Plaintiff states that she has not placed her mental health in issue.  (Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 6:19; Moreno Decl., ¶ 25.)

On March 14, 2023, Defendant served subpoenas for business records to five medical service providers: (1) West Star Physical Therapy; (2) Congress Orthopedic Associates; (3) Good Samaritan Hospital; (4) Haas Spine & Orthopedics; and (5) Precise Imaging.  (Moreno Decl., Exh. 1.)  These subpoenas generally seek all information regarding Plaintiff’s treatment, billing, and payment from August 26, 2020 (the date of the incident) to the present.

In addition, on March 14 and April 17, 2023, Defendant served subpoenas for business records to the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Fire Department.  These subpoenas sought records of incidents relating to Plaintiff dating back to August 26, 2010.   (Id., Exhs. 1 & 13.)

On April 14 and May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed these two motions to quash the subpoenas.  On June 23 and 8, Defendant its oppositions.  On June 29 and 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed her replies.

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.) 

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).)

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

Subpoenas to Medical Service Providers

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas to the five medical service providers violate her constitutional right to privacy and are overbroad as they are not limited to the body parts at issue in this case – Plaintiff’s left wrist, her left big toe, her neck, her mid back, and her lower back. 

The right of privacy of individuals is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.) The framework for evaluating invasions of privacy in discovery have been clarified in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.  There, the California Supreme Court held that, generally, “[t]he 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.  The party seeking 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.”  (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 533, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)  The court rejected the cases which held that the party seeking protected information must always show a compelling need or interest.  (Id. at p. 557.)  Instead, the court held, “[o]nly obvious invasions of interest fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.”  (Id.)   

Here, Plaintiff has raised an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical records under the circumstances.  (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557.)  However, as previously discussed, Plaintiff’s privacy interests must be balanced against Defendant’s right to obtain discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.210.) While Plaintiff has put her injuries relating to her left big toe, left wrist, neck, mid back, and lower back at issue in this case by filing a lawsuit against Defendant, the subpoenas seeking Plaintiff’s entire medical, billing, and radiological records are overly broad. Defendant has not articulated any facts establishing a legitimate or important countervailing interest that would be served by the compelled disclosure of records regarding medical conditions or treatment relating to other parts of Plaintiff’s body. 

Therefore, after conducting the balancing of competing interests identified in the case law, the Court will grant the motion to quash in part and deny the motion to quash in part.  The subpoenas to the medical providers will be limited to records relating to Plaintiff’s left big toe, left wrist, neck, mid back, and lower back.  With this modification, the motion to quash the subpoenas to the medical service providers is in all other respects denied.

Subpoena to Los Angeles Police Department

Police records may also, in some circumstances, be covered by the right to privacy.  (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1498 (“The courts have repeatedly recognized that release of arrest records or dissemination of information about arrests implicated the right to privacy of the arrestees.”). See also Kilgore v. Younger (1982) 30 Cal.3d 770, 794 (noting a right of action for a violation of the right of privacy has been alleged based on the unlawful dissemination of records prohibited by Penal Code § 11105).) 

In addition, Plaintiff argues that the subpoena to the police department is nothing more than a fishing expedition because, she says (or her attorney says), she did not make a report to the police regarding the incident in question.  Defendant, however, is not required to accept that representation; to the contrary, Defendant is entitled to test the veracity of that statement and to obtain, through discovery, any records that may exist regarding the incident in question.

Nonetheless, Defendant’s subpoena, as issued, is overly broad and seeks not only reports relating to the incident but also any other reports relating to Plaintiff going all the way back to 2010.  (Moreno Decl., Exh. 13.)  Despite its efforts (Noah Decl., Exh. A), Defendant has not made an adequate showing that these reports (assuming they exist) are admissible evidence or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Therefore, the Court will grant the motion to quash in part and deny the motion to quash in part.  The subpoenas to the police department will be limited to reports relating to any incident on August 26, 2020, at 447 South Grand View Street, Los Angeles, California, involving Plaintiff.  With this modification, the motion to quash the subpoena is in all other respects denied.

Subpoena to Los Angeles Fire Department

Defendant subpoenas the fire department for records relating to Plaintiff going back to 2010.  (Moreno Decl., Exh. 1.)  No one contends, however, that anyone called the fire department regarding the incident at issue.  To the extent that Defendant seeks records relating to reports of other events on other dates, Defendant has not made an adequate showing that these reports (assuming they exist) are admissible evidence or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Accordingly, the subpoena to the fire department is quashed.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant. However, CCP section 2023.040 states: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Plaintiff did not seek sanctions against Defendant in the notice of motion, and thus, the request is denied.  In any event, and independently, the Court finds that the Defendant has acted with substantial justification, and therefore the Court denies the request for sanctions.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The subpoenas to West Star Physical Therapy; Congress Orthopedic Associates; Good Samaritan Hospital; Haas Spine & Orthopedics; and Precise Imaging are MODIFIED and LIMITED to records relating to Plaintiff’s left big toe, left wrist, neck, mid back, and lower back.  In all other respects, the motion to quash is denied.

The subpoenas to the Los Angeles Police Department are MODIFIED and LIMITED to reports relating to any incident on August 26, 2020, at 447 South Grand View Street, Los Angeles, California, involving Plaintiff.  In all other respects, the motion to quash is denied.

The motion to quash the subpoena issued to the Los Angeles Fire Department is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Note: once the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to deny a party’s request to withdraw the motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.