Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV40286, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV40286 Hearing Date: April 18, 2023 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: April 18, 2023 TRIAL
DATE: October 3, 2023
CASE: ANGELICA DUARTE vs AMAZON.COM, INC. ET
AL.
CASE NO.: 21STCV40286 
MOTION TO
QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO THIRD PARTY KAISER
PERMANENTE
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Angelica Duarte
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant
Amazon.com Services LLC
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for employment
discrimination that was filed on November 2, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that she
was terminated for attendance issues related to her disabilities of debilitating
menstrual cramps and epilepsy. Plaintiff is claiming damages for emotional
distress, stress, anxiety, depression, menstrual pain or other abnormalities
associated with menstruation, and epilepsy.
Defendant issued a subpoena to
Kaiser Permanente to obtain all records from Plaintiff’s hiring date of April
3, 2019 to present. Plaintiff objected to the subpoena as overbroad and
violating her privacy rights. The parties limited the issue to whether lab
reports were discoverable. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to
quash or limit Defendant’s subpoena.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s motion to stay to quash
is DENIED, but her alternative motion to limit the scope of Defendant’s
subpoena is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiff Angelica Duarte
(Plaintiff) moves to quash Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC’s (Defendant)
subpoena served on Kaiser Permanente (Kaiser) on the grounds that it: (1) is overbroad
and fails to describe the requested documents with reasonable particularity; (2)
is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence; and (3) seeks records protected from disclosure by Plaintiff’s privacy
rights. In the alternative Plaintiff seeks to limit that subpoena to “[a]ll
documents that discuss, refer, or relate to the treatment of Angelica Duarte
from April 3, 2019 to the present pertaining [to] Angelica Duarte’s emotional
distress, stress, anxiety, depression, menstrual pain or other abnormalities
associated with menstruation, or epilepsy.” (Mot., at p. 8.)
If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may
quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. (CCP), § 1987.1 (a).)¿
There is no meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP §
1987.1. However, there is a separate statement requirement:
(a)¿Separate
statement required
Any motion
involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request
must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a
separate statement include a motion:
. . .
¿(5)¿ To
compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a
deposition . . . .
(California Rules of Court (CRC) Rule 3.1345(a)(5), bold
emphasis added.) This separate statement must set forth the particular
documents or demands at issue and the factual and legal reasons why production
should not be compelled, and it must meet all of the other requirements of CRC
3.1345(c) and (d). Here, Plaintiff has submitted the required separate
statement, and the discussion below is limited to the issues raised in the
separate statement.
Failure
to Describe Documents with Reasonable Particularity
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s subpoena is not reasonably
particularized because it seeks all documents relating to Plaintiff’s medical
history at Kaiser, with no restrictions. (Separate Statement (SS), at p. 7.)
The subpoena language at issue is:
All documents and records pertaining to the care, treatment,
and/or examination of Angelica Duarte, DOB: February 4, 1988, SS#: XXX-XX-4004,
from April 3, 2019 to present, including, but not limited to mental health
treatment provided by Adriana Gomez, Abanthi Jagadish, and any other providers;
appointment records, sign-in sheets, inpatient and outpatient charts and
records, emergency room and lab reports, x-ray reports, pathology reports,
prescription and pharmacy records, progress notes, discharge summaries, and any
other records pertaining to Angelica Duarte, from April 3, 2019 up to and
including the present.
“A
deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for
copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by
specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing
each category of item. . . .” (CCP § 2020.410 (a).)
The Court agrees that subpoena is overbroad because it is not
reasonably particularized but the parties have met and conferred and agree to
limit an authorization for the same records from Kaiser to “medical records
pertaining to emotional distress, stress, anxiety, depression, menstrual pain
or other abnormalities associated with menstruation, or epilepsy” (the Claimed
Injuries). (Mot., Exh. 4.) Plaintiff requests that the Court impose the same
limitations. (Mot., at p. 8.) The subpoena is reasonably particularized as to
time because it is limited to Plaintiff’s hiring date to present. The Court
finds the limitation agreed to by the parties for the proposed authorization is
reasonably particularized. Thus, the subpoena will be limited to medical
records pertaining to emotional distress, stress, anxiety, depression,
menstrual pain or other abnormalities associated with menstruation, or
epilepsy.
Relevance
and Right to Medical Privacy
Plaintiff argues that the subpoena includes documents that are not
directly relevant to this action and, thus, infringe on Plaintiff’s right to
medical privacy. Specifically, during the parties’ meet and confer process,
Plaintiff objected to including lab reports in an authorization for the same records
from Kaiser even if it was limited to records pertaining to the claimed
injuries.
Current discovery standards hold that,
“any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the
matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Board of Registered
Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039.) “To meet this [test],
a party seeking to compel [the] production of records . . . must articulate
specific facts justifying the discovery sought; it may not rely on mere
generalities.” (Ibid.; see Johnson v. Superior Court (1968) 258
Cal.App.2d 829, 837 [finding that a subpoena was “insufficient” to compel
production because it was “based wholly on the [party’s] alleged information
and belief without any statement of supporting facts”].) However, “[e]ven if
information is otherwise discoverable, it may be protected by a constitutional
or statutory privilege[,] [including] the right to privacy . . . .” (Board
of Nursing, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 1039.)
“The state Constitution expressly grants
Californians a right of privacy. Protection of informational privacy is the provision's
central concern .¿ .¿ .¿ .¿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.¿A
court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)¿
“[T]he filing of
a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional
right of . . . privacy.”¿(Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844,
859.) However, the California Supreme Court held that “the scope of such
‘waiver’ must be narrowly rather than expansively construed.” (Ibid.)¿“[W]hile
[a plaintiff] may not withhold information which relates to any physical or
mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they
are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or
psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.” (Ibid.)
Therefore, a patient cannot reasonably expect certain matters to remain private
if they are related to the specific issues that the patient has brought before
a court. On the other hand, it is objectively reasonable to expect health care
records that are unrelated to a current legal dispute to remain private.
The parties met and conferred regarding
the scope of the subpoena after Plaintiff objected to it. (Mot., Exh. 4.) The
parties agreed to use a signed authorization instead of a subpoena to allow Defendant
to obtain records from Kaiser. (Mot., Exh. 4.) The parties agreed to limit the
authorization to medical records pertaining to
the Claimed Injuries and the Court finds that limitation appropriate. (Mot.,
Exh. 4.) However, during the meet and confer process, Plaintiff objected to
having lab reports be included in the authorization because she argued there
are no lab reports for the Claimed Injuries and including the language could
result in a mistake by Kaiser including lab reports not related to the Claimed
Injuries.
The subpoena, as limited to all documents related to the Claimed
Injuries, does not seek irrelevant documents or violate Plaintiff’s right to
medical privacy. As in Britt, Plaintiff has partially waived her right
to medical privacy as to the physical and mental conditions she put at issue in
this action. Because Defendant is entitled to obtain lab reports that relate to
the Claimed Injuries, if they exist, the
subpoena, as limited to all documents related to the Claimed Injuries, does not
seek irrelevant documents or violate Plaintiff’s right to medical privacy.
Plaintiff also argued that lab reports should not be included
because Defendant has not demonstrated a compelling need for lab reports that
outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy rights. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant needs to
identify a type of lab report that relates to the Claimed Injuries. However,
there is no such burden to prove the existence of a type of medical record
sought in order to request it. If no such records exist, then Kaiser should
produce no responsive documents to that part of the request.
Thus,
the subpoena will be limited to medical records
pertaining to emotional distress, stress, anxiety, depression, menstrual pain
or other abnormalities associated with menstruation, or epilepsy, but not
exclude any relevant lab reports, if they exist.
//
CONCLUSION:
Moving Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2023 ___________________________________
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.