Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV23909, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV23909 Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 Dept: 29
Hernandez v. Lim
23STCV23909
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas
Tentative
The motion is granted
in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2023, Jeanette Hernandez (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against George Lim (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50 for
negligence arising out of an accident occurring on October 29, 2021.
On November 22, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
In May 2024, Defendant issued four subpoenas for Plaintiff’s
medical records from various health care providers.
On June 6, 2024,
Plaintiff filed this motion to quash the four subpoenas. Defendant filed an
opposition on June 20. Plaintiff filed a reply on June 26.
The hearing was initially scheduled for July
3 and was continued by the Court to August 8.
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 overrules Defendant’s procedural
objections to the motion to quash.
On or about May 14, 2024, Defendant issued four
subpoenas to the following health care providers: (1) Francis Yuan, M.D.; (2) Northeast
Valley Health Corporation; (3) Randy Martin, OMD; and (4) Neurological
Institute of Los Angeles. (Liberman
Decl., Exh. A.) The subpoenas request
production of the following:
“Any and all
medical records, doctors' reports, notes, memoranda, correspondence,
videotapes, audio tapes, results of all tests, nurse's notes, physical therapy
notes, progress notes, surgical notes, surgical videotapes, sign in sheets,
patient information sheets and arthrograms pertaining to above named
individual.
Including
diagnosis as to condition and prognosis for recovery, and any other information
to the treatment of said individual.
INCLUDE: ANY AND
ALL X-RAYS, MRI’s, CT SCANS, RADIOLOGY FILMS, RADIOLOGY REPORTS & BILLING
RECORDS.”
(Ibid.)
The time period for the requested records in
the subpoena is from May 1, 2014 to the present. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff
contends that the subpoenas invade her right to privacy and that the requested
records are irrelevant and not discoverable.
Defendant contends
that the subpoenas seek discoverable information in a case in which Plaintiff seeks
to recover for a wide range of physical injuries.
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);
El 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 broad in scope and time and seek
information regarding personal health, medical care, and treatment, all of
which are private, personal, and sensitive.
At this
point, under Williams and Hill, Defendant 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.)
Defendant
has made this showing, at least in part.
Plaintiff
contends that in this accident, she sustained
injuries to “her neck, lower back, pain and bruising on her hip, gluteal, head,
shoulder, pelvis, feet, and hands.” (Motion, at p. 3:6-8.) Defendant has a legitimate and important interest in obtaining
medical records for some reasonable period of time regarding injuries and
treatments to these parts of Plaintiff’s body, both as a result of this
incident and any other incidents that caused injury or required treatment.
But Defendant
has not made the required showing as to other aspects of the subpoenaed records. For example, Defendant seeks records from Dr.
Yuan, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology. Defendant has not shown how or why he has a
legitimate or important interest is examining Plaintiff’s gynecology records. Nor has Defendant shown how or why he has an
interest in reviewing Plaintiff’s medical records going back to May 2014, more
than seven years before the accident.
As to
the records for which Defendant has demonstrated a legitimate and import interest,
Plaintiff has not identified any feasible alternatives that would serve the
same interests and diminish the 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 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 in certain respects Defendant’s legitimate
interest in obtaining the subpoenaed records outweighs Plaintiff’s substantial
privacy interests. Accordingly, the Court
rules as follows:
1.
First, the subpoena
issued to Dr. Yuan is quashed in its entirety.
(The Court recognizes that in certain circumstances, a patient may discuss
general health issues with a doctor outside of the doctor’s area of specialty,
and that sometimes the doctor may provide treatment, but there is no evidence
in this record that Dr. Yuan provided any treatment to Plaintiff relating to
the injuries at issue here.)
2.
Second, the
subpoenas issued to Northeast Valley Health
Corporation; Randy Martin, OMD; and Neurological Institute of Los Angeles are
limited to medical records involving the following areas of Plaintiff’s body: neck,
lower back, hips, gluteal area, head, shoulder, pelvis, feet, and hands.
3.
Third, the subpoenas
issued to Northeast Valley Health Corporation;
Randy Martin, OMD; and Neurological Institute of Los Angeles are further limited
to medical records during the period of October 29, 2016 (five years prior to accident) to the present.
With
these limitations, the Court will otherwise deny the motion to quash the
subpoenas issued to Northeast Valley Health
Corporation; Randy Martin, OMD; and Neurological Institute of Los Angeles.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to quash
the subpoenas directed to Francis Yuan.
The Court
MODIFIES the subpoenas directed to Northeast Valley Health Corporation, Randy
Martin, OMD, and Neurological Institute of Los Angeles, and, as modified,
DENIES the motion to quash these subpoenas.
Moving Party is to give notice.