Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV29777, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV29777 Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 Dept: 29
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Limit Sixteen Subpoenas
Tentative
The Court will hear from counsel. Counsel may not submit on the tentative.
The tentative ruling is that the motion is
granted in part and denied in part.
Background
On
September 13, 2022, Brenda N. Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Sergio M. Delarosa Jr., Philip M. Mendoza, and Does 1 through 60, asserting causes
of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an
automobile collision occurring on September 16, 2020.
On
July 24, 2023, Sergio M. De La Rosa Jr. (erroneously sued as Sergio M. Delarosa
Jr.) and Philip M. Mendoza (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an answer to the
complaint.
On
March 20, 20224, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Year Around Pest and
Termite (business entity form unknown) as Doe 1, Year Around Pest and Termite,
LLC (a California limited liability company) as Doe 2, and Nancy Mendoza as Doe
3.
On
or about March 21, 2024, Defendants issued sixteen deposition subpoenas for the
production of business records to the following persons or entities, seeking
the following records:
1)
Dr.
Sherif Labatia, M.D.: “All records of and concerning [Plaintiff’s] medical
history, care, treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, evaluations, examinations,
physiotherapy and all other diagnostic tests and procedures,” without any time
limitation.
2)
Argus
Medical Management, LLC: “All charges/billings made therefore pertaining to
[Plaintiff],” payments received from any source, and current amount owed,
without any time limitation.
3)
Walgreen
Co.: “Any and all medical records and billing information for [Plaintiff],”
including prescription information, without any time limitation.
4)
Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company & Cigna Health & Life Insurance Company:
“Any and all medical records, medical insurance records, medical billing
records,” relating to Plaintiff, without any time limitation.
5)
Camp
Xcel: “Any and all records, documents, computer generated documents that
reflect the attendance of” Plaintiff, without any time limitation.
6)
Fit
Body Boot Camp: “Any and all records, documents, computer generated documents
that reflect the attendance of” Plaintiff, without any time limitation.
7)
Elite
Fitness: “Any and all records, documents, computer generated documents that
reflect the attendance” Plaintiff, without any time limitation.
8)
Ikon
Strength and Performance: “Any and all records, documents, computer generated
documents that reflect the attendance of Plaintiff, without any time
limitation.
9)
Planet
Fitness: “Any and all records, documents, computer generated documents that
reflect the attendance of” Plaintiff, without any time limitation.
10)
Still
Got It Fitness: “Any and all records, documents, computer generated documents
that reflect the attendance of” Plaintiff, without any time limitation.
11)
9Round
Fitness: “Any and all records, documents, computer generated documents that
reflect the attendance of” Plaintiff, without any time limitation.
12)
Polly’s
Place: “All work records, reports, statements or memoranda: relating to income,
hours worked, medical examinations, workers’ compensation, resumes,
communication, job performance evaluations, termination, or physical impairment
of Plaintiff, from the first day of employment to the present (except that records
regarding physical impairments are not limited in time).
13)
Disneyland
Resort: “[D]ates of annual pass purchases, dates of annual pass renewals, ride
history, and any other membership or attendance records” of Plaintiff, without
any time limitation.
14)
Universal
City Studios LLC, “[D]ates of annual pass purchases, dates of annual pass
renewals, ride history, and any other membership or attendance records” of Plaintiff,
without any time limitation.
15)
Knott’s
Berry Farm LLC: “[D]ates of annual pass purchases, dates of annual pass
renewals, ride history, and any other membership or attendance records” Plaintiff,
without any time limitation.
16)
Mercury
Insurance Company: “All non-privileged portions of the claim
file.”
(Nickfardjam
Decl., ¶¶ 6-7 & Exh. B.)
On April 18,
2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash or limit the subpoenas. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions. Defendants filed their opposition on May 2, along
with their own requests for sanctions. Plaintiff
filed a reply on May 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
The Court begins with three threshold
matters.
First, the Court has a serious concern
about a potential material misrepresentation by Defendants’ counsel. The Court has reviewed the subpoenas and it
appears to the Court that fifteen of the sixteen subpoenas have no time
limitation. In their opposition and
supporting attorney declaration, however, Defendants represent to the Court
that all of the subpoenas have a time limitation. (E.g., Opp. at p. 14; Saravia Decl., ¶ 12.) THE COURT WILL HEAR FROM DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL ON
THIS ISSUE.
Second, Defendants raise a procedural issue
about whether Plaintiff should have filed 16 separate motions rather than one
combined motion. The Court will exercise
its discretion o consider Plaintiff’s single combined motion on the merits.
Third, Plaintiff objects to the subpoenas
based on potential burden on third parties.
That objection is overruled without prejudice. If compliance with a subpoena creates an
undue burden on any third party, such third party is free to raise that issue
(supported by sufficient evidence), but this is not an objection that Plaintiff
has standing to make (or can support with sufficient evidence).
Turning to the merits, Plaintiff’s primary
objection is that the subpoenas seek information that is not relevant and
invade Plaintiff’s 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 employment
records, medical records, and financial records.¿¿(El Dorado Savings &
Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345; Board of
Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526; see also 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).)
“The public interest in preserving confidential, personnel 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.)
Subpoena to Dr. Labatia
Plaintiff attributes orthopedic injuries to,
and pain throughout, most of her body to the accident. (Saravia Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, 13 & Exhs.
A-B.) Although Plaintiff has a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the medical records held by Dr. Labatia, her primary
care physician, Plaintiff has placed these records in issue in this personal
injury litigation, and Defendants have a legitimate and important
countervailing interest in disclosure. The
Court has balanced the competing considerations and limits the subpoena to
records regarding physical injuries (and not, for example, illness or disease)
for the period of September 16, 2015 (five years before the accident) to the
present. With this limitation, the
motion to quash is denied.
Three Subpoenas Regarding Medical Billing and
Pharmacy Records (Argus, Walgreen, Cigna)
Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of
privacy in her medical billing records and pharmacy records, but Plaintiff has
placed these records in issue in this personal injury litigation, and
Defendants have a legitimate and important countervailing interest in
disclosure. The Court has balanced the
competing considerations and limits the subpoena to billing and pharmacy records
for the period of September 16, 2020 (the date of the accident) to the
present. With this limitation, the
motion to quash is denied.
Seven Subpoenas to Fitness Centers (Camp
Excel, Fit Body, Elite, Ikon, Planet Fitness, Still Got It, 9Rounds)
Defendants argue that they have “reason to
believe” that Plaintiff went to a gym or fitness center immediately after the
accident. (Saravia Decl., ¶ 10.) They have not otherwise explained why Plaintiff’s
fitness center records are discoverable; they have not argued, for example, how
or why these records are admissible evidence or reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(Id.; see also Opp. at pp. 15-16.)
Given this argument, the Court will limit
these subpoenas to attendance at the fitness centers on the date of the
accident, September 16, 2020.
(To the extent that Plaintiff objects on
the ground that she is not a member of most of the fitness centers that have
been subpoenaed, the objection is overruled.
If she is not a member, then no records exist, and no privacy interest
is implicated.)
With this limitation, the motion to quash
is denied.
Three Subpoenas to Amusement Parks (Disney,
Universal, Knott’s)
Given the breadth of discovery under the Civil
Discovery Act, Defendants have established a sufficient basis for some of the
records requested by these subpoenas. (Opp.
at p. 16; Saravia Decl., ¶ 11.) Given
Defendants’ argument regarding discoverability, however, the time period must
be limited to the period of September 16, 2020 (the date of the accident) to
the present. Plaintiff has little or no
privacy interest in records relating to her attendance at amusement parks.
With the limitation as to time, the motion
to quash is denied.
Subpoena to Mercury Insurance
Defendants seek the production of the
non-privileged records in the claim file relating to this accident. Plaintiff does not, in her briefing, explain
why this subpoena is improper or should be quashed or limited.
The motion to limit or quash is denied.
Subpoena to Employer (Polly’s Place)
Defendants seek 13 categories of Plaintiff’s
employment records. Plaintiff has a reasonable
expectation of privacy in her employment records, but Plaintiff has placed
these records in issue in this personal injury litigation, at least in part, by
asserting that her injuries from the accident have interfered with her ability
to work. (Saravia, ¶ 8; Opp. at pp. 16-17).
The Court has balanced the competing
considerations and limits the subpoena as follows: (a) categories 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, and 13 are limited in time to the period of September 16, 2018 (two years
before the date of the accident) to the present; (b) categories 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, and 12 are stricken.
With this limitation, the motion to quash
is denied.
Sanctions
“[I]n making an order pursuant to … 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 that 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).)
Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied. The Court finds that Plaintiff did not make
the motion in bad faith or without substantial justification.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The request for sanctions is not included in
the notice of motion and motion, and therefore adequate notice of the request
for sanctions was not given to Defendants.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s
motion to quash or limit sixteen subpoenas.
The Court ORDERS that the subpoena to Dr.
Labatia is limited to records regarding physical
injuries (and not, for example, illness or disease) for the period of September
16, 2015 to the present.
The Court ORDERS
that the subpoenas to Argues Medical Management, Walgreen, and Connecticut General
Life Insurance/Cigna Health & Life Insurance are limited to the period of
September 16, 2020 to the present.
The Court ORDERS
that the subpoenas to Camp Xcel, Fit Body Boot Camp, Elite Fitness, Ikon
Strength and Performance, Planet Fitness, Still Got It Fitness, and 9Round Fitness
are limited to September 16, 2020.
The Court ORDERS
that the subpoenas to Disneyland Resort, Universal City Studios, and Knott’s
Berry Farm are limited to to the period of September 16, 2020 to the present.
The Court DENIES
the motion to limit or quash the subpoena to Mercury Insurance Company.
The Court ORDERS
that the subpoena to Polly’s Place is limited to the documents described in categories
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 13 in the subpoena (categories 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
are stricken in their entireties) and is further limited to the time period of
September 16, 2018 to the present.
With these limitations, the Court DENIES
the motion to quash.
The Court DENIES both parties’ requests for
sanctions.
Moving Party is to give notice.