Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV25735, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25735    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff Hilda Rodriguez-Guzman filed this action against Defendants The Accelerated Schools and Johnathan Williams.

Pending before the Court are two discovery motions.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

On November 7, 2023, Defendants served two subpoenas on Kaiser Permanente for Plaintiff’s medical records (Department of Psychiatry) and billing records.

On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash the subpoenas or for a protective order to limit the subpoenas.  Plaintiff argues that the requests violate her right to privacy and records prior to 2016 are not relevant.

“‘[F]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement’ and ‘[a]dmissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.’  These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery . . . and (contrary to popular belief) fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.”  (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653, citations omitted.)  The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right,” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery.  (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.)  There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information, and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

Plaintiff alleges that she suffers “severe and permanent emotional and mental distress and anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort and anxiety” due to Defendants’ actions.  (Complaint ¶ 81; see Complaint ¶¶ 105, 134, 164, 208, 238, 270, 278, 301, 305-306, 308, 331, 378, 397.)  There is no privilege for communications relevant to a patient’s health if that issue has been tendered by the patient.  (Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1313.)  “A patient tenders the issue of his physical health if he files an action for personal injuries but only as to information which relates to the claimed injuries.”  (Ibid.)  As Defendants set forth, Plaintiff’s discovery responses and deposition also asserted physical, mental, and emotional injuries.  (Opposition at pp. 3-4.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff has put her physical and mental health at issue for these injuries, and Defendants are entitled to her medical records as they relate to these injuries.  As to Plaintiff’s request to limit the time period of the record, Defendants’ request for records since 2012 is reasonable and relevant because Plaintiff was employed by Defendants since September 2007, became a Health Service Coordinator in 2012, and was terminated in July 2019.  (Complaint ¶¶ 16, 41.)

The motion to quash is DENIED with respect to the medical records.

For the billing records, Defendants are willing to withdraw this request on the condition that Plaintiff is not seeking those damages.  (Opposition at p. 5.)  Plaintiff has not responded to this offer.  At the hearing, Plaintiff should inform the Court and Defendants if she is willing to stipulate to this condition.  Otherwise, the motion is DENIED with respect to the billing records because Plaintiff alleges damages that include “medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future.”  (Complaint ¶ 80; see, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 104, 133, 163, 205, 237, 269, 307, 309 [“Plaintiff has been forced to incur expenses for medical care, X-rays, and laboratory costs, and is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Plaintiff will in the future be forced to incur additional expenses of the same nature.”].)

The motion to quash is DENIED.

Kaiser Permanente is ordered to produce the requested records pursuant to the subpoena within 60 days.

The request for sanctions is denied.  Defendants do have a legitimate discovery interest in Plaintiff’s medical records related to her claimed injuries.  Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant was substantially justified in opposing the motion.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (d).)

Defendants’ request for sanctions is also denied.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three.

On January 19, 2024, the parties stipulated to continue the hearing on the motion because, after meeting and conferring, Defendant agreed to produce further documents and responses.

As of the date of the Court’s tentative ruling, the parties have not provided any other updates.  The Court cannot determine which RFPs are still at issue and which ones have been resolved by Defendant’s supplemental production.

Accordingly, on the Court’s own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is CONTINUED to May 2, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Five court days before the hearing, the parties are ordered to file a Joint Statement outlining the remaining disputes, following the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website).  If the matter is fully resolved, then Plaintiff shall take the hearing off calendar.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 27th day of February 2024