Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCV36225 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV36225, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36225 Hearing Date: September 1, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: September 1, 2022 TRIAL DATE: December 1, 2022

CASE: Jessica Magee v. Cast Parts, Inc. et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCV36225

MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS TO PROVIDENCE ST. JUDE MEDICAL CENTER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jessica Magee

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Cast Parts, Inc., Consolidated Precision Products Corp., and Freddy Jimenez

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

In her September 22, 2020 Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated against her for reporting their discrimination and harassment of her based on race. She also alleges discrimination, harassment, Labor Code claims, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Plaintiff moves to quash a pair of identical deposition subpoenas to Providence St. Jude Medical Center on the grounds that they violate her privacy rights.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Modify the Subpoenas is GRANTED IN PART: Providence St. Jude Medical Center is directed to produce all responsive documents to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall produce to Defendants’ counsel all documents received from Providence St. Jude Medical Center relating to Plaintiff’s mental state from the year 2012 through the present, and all documents received from Providence St. Jude Medical Center relating to Plaintiff’s cancer treatment from the year 2017 through the present.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall produce these documents within 10 court days of the date of receipt of the documents from Providence St. Jude Medical Center. Plaintiff’s counsel shall also produce simultaneously to Defendants’ counsel an index and log of any and all documents withheld from Defendants, which shall identify any withheld documents with sufficient particularity to evaluate whether the withheld documents should be produced.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to quash a pair of identical deposition subpoenas to Providence St. Jude Medical Center on the grounds that they violate the privacy rights of Plaintiff.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides, in relevant part:

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, 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),h . . . 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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).)

There is no meet and confer requirement set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1

Analysis

In ruling on a privacy objection in the context of discovery, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) The party asserting a privacy right must also establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances. (Id.) Further, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id.) The Court need not proceed to the fourth step of balancing competing interests if all three of the above are not satisfied. (Id. at 555.)

If the Court reaches the fourth step, the Court must balance the parties’ competing considerations. The party seeking information may raise whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure may serve. (Id. at 552.) The party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. (Id.) Courts may not require the party seeking discovery to demonstrate a “compelling need” simply because discovery of any facially private information is sought. (Id. at 556-557.) When a privacy interest is asserted, the party seeking production must show that the information sought is directly relevant to a cause of action or a defense. (Harris v. Superior Court (Smets) (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859-62.)

When a litigant has placed their mental or emotional condition at issue in litigation, the physician-patient litigation exception does not apply. (Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 337.) The patient/litigant exception is narrowly construed and putting one’s mental state at issue does not eradicate all privacy interests of the patient/litigant. (San Diego Trolley v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th, 1083, 1093.) The patient/litigant exception does not permit disclosure of medical records regarding injuries that are not related to injuries claimed in the lawsuit. (See Davis v. Superior Court (1993) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1018.)

Defendants have subpoenaed the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical records at Providence St. Jude Medical Center. Medical records fall within the zone of privacy protected by Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1013.) Plaintiff does not directly show that the threatened intrusion is serious, but the requested production of Plaintiff’s entire medical record is, on its face, sufficient to demonstrate a serious threatened intrusion without further showing from the Plaintiff. (Declaration of Samuel P. Nielson ISO Mot. ¶ 3 Exh. 1.) Plaintiff concedes that she has placed her mental state at issue in this litigation but contends that Plaintiff’s medical conditions beyond her mental state fall outside the scope of this action. Plaintiff alleged in her second cause of action that she had a disability relating to past cancer treatment, but this allegation is only relevant insofar as it alleges that Defendants were on notice of Plaintiff’s disability and failed to engage in the interactive process. (Complaint ¶ 45.) The Court does not think that these allegations are sufficient to obviate Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy in her entire medical record at Providence St. Jude Medical Center, beyond the matters specifically placed at issue. The Court finds that Plaintiff has met the first three elements of the privacy test. The Court now turns to the question of balancing the competing interests.

In opposition, Defendants contend that the records sought are directly relevant to the claims in this matter. However, with the exception of Plaintiff’s admission that she had been treated for cancer, Defendants offer no evidence of any other medical condition which might have some bearing on Plaintiff’s emotional distress claims. The Declaration of Defendants’ expert, Dr. Marc A. Cohen, M.D., does not identify any condition that might have given rise to the injuries claimed. (Declaration of Sergio Ponce ISO Opp. Exh. H.) In fact, Dr. Cohen does not even state that it is necessary to review Plaintiff’s medical records before conducting a psychiatric examination. (Id.) Defendants offer no other testimony, evidence, or other statements on the record showing that Plaintiff put any other medical conditions at issue in this case. The Court therefore finds that, outside of Plaintiff’s emotional distress and cancer treatment, Defendants have not shown that the records sought are directly relevant to this case.

With respect to Plaintiff’s cancer treatment, Plaintiff argues in reply that these records are also not directly relevant. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that her major cancer treatment occurred in 2017, following her 2016 diagnosis, and since 2017 has only been taking prophylactic pills to prevent recurrence of her cancer. (Declaration of Jessica Magee ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff did not begin her employment with Defendants until July of 2019. (Complaint ¶ 11.) The Court is not convinced. Plaintiff cites her cancer as the disability which forms the basis of her contention that Defendants failed to engage in the interactive process. (Complaint ¶ 45.) In doing so, Plaintiff has placed her cancer treatment and its effects on her directly at issue, and thus, the records are directly relevant to this case.

Plaintiff also states she is willing to agree to modifying the subpoena, such that Defendants would be provided all documents relating to Plaintiff’s emotional distress and mental state from the year 2012 through the present. This request is precisely in line with Defendants’ previous proposal of limiting the subpoena to the last ten years. Plaintiff also requests that the Court order that all medical records be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel in a first-look procedure, providing Plaintiff’s counsel with 10 court days from receipt of the records to review the records and produce responsive documents, with any documents withheld to be indexed and logged with sufficient particularity to permit further meeting and conferring and discovery motions, if necessary. The Court finds this request is an appropriate means of balancing the competing interests of privacy and the need for effective trial preparation in light of the allegations in the Complaint, with the exception that the Court believes it appropriate to modify the subpoena to also require production of documents relating to Plaintiff’s cancer treatment from 2017 through the present, subject to the same first-look procedure.

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,105.50 from Defendants and their counsel jointly.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 authorizes the awarding of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred or expended in a motion to quash a subpoena ““if the court finds the motion was...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.) Furthermore, “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030.) Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).)

Here, based on the arguments presented, the Court finds that Defendants acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion to quash, and, although the subpoenas as originally drafted were overbroad, the Court does not conclude that they were oppressive based on the arguments and evidence presented. The Court therefore declines to award sanctions in this instance.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Modify the Subpoena is GRANTED IN PART: Providence St. Jude Medical Center is directed to produce all responsive documents to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall produce these documents within 10 court days of the date of receipt of the documents from Providence St. Jude Medical Center. Plaintiff’s counsel shall also produce simultaneously to Defendants’ counsel an index and log of any and all documents withheld from Defendants, which shall identify any withheld documents with sufficient particularity to determine whether the withheld documents should be produced.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2022 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.