Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1231102, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court is a Motion to Quash filed by Plaintiff Margarita Cota de Torres (“Plaintiff”), seeking an order to quash 16 subpoenas for medical records as issued by Defendant Kohl’s Inc. (“Kohls”).

Plaintiff has asserted privacy interests in the records at issue. Where privacy interests are at issue, the 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. The court must then balance these competing considerations.  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)

Here, Plaintiff has shown a legally protected privacy interest in her medical records, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. But she has not shown an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in all of the material at issue under the circumstances here, as she has clearly put both her physical and mental health at issue. (See e.g. Trotter Decl., Ex. C, at 212.2  and 212.3 [claiming she “suffers from severe depression and anxiety”], and Ex. D at No. 3 [showing Plaintiff here is claiming $130,000 in economic damages, and $6,000,000 in non-economic damages, as well as $10,000,000 in punitive damages].)

In light of Plaintiff’s claims, Kohls has shown a legitimate and important countervailing interest in obtaining her medical history, including her history for a reasonable period prior to the illness at issue. Plaintiff in response made no reasonable proposals to limit the scope of the subpoenas, while Kohls proposed a protective order but did not offer to reduce the temporal range of the subpoenas.

In balancing these competing considerations, the Court finds that the subpoenas are not overbroad, except that the temporal range should be shortened to allow the discovery only for the period from 1/1/2015 forward.  The Motions are therefore GRANTED IN PART, as to all requested records for any care or treatment rendered prior to 1/1/2015, but otherwise DENIED.  All records obtained through such subpoenas are not to be used or disclosed other than for this litigation.

Both sides’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.  Although Plaintiff’s Motion unreasonably attempted to quash the subpoenas entirely, there was some merit to the objection as to the timeframe identified therein. The Court thus does not find that the Motion was brought in bad faith or was entirely without justification.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions as presented on reply is patently improper under C.C.P. § 2023.040, and plainly unjustified, and thus denied in full.

Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.