Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21STCV10554, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10554    Hearing Date: January 27, 2025    Dept: 45

COOPER v. NGWOKE

motioN TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED BY DEFENDANT PAUL NGWOKE

Date of Hearing:          1/27/2025                               Trial Date:       5/5/2025

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         21STCV10554

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Asja Cooper

Responding Party:       Defendant Paul Ngwoke [NO OPPOSITION FILED]

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Plaintiff’s motion is granted in its entirety.

The Court orders quashed the Subpoena for Business Records issued to Centinela Hospital Medical Center/Medical on June 28, 2024, under Superior Court Case No. 21STCV10554.

The Court orders quashed the Subpoena for Business Records issued to Centinela Hospital Medical Center/Billing on June 28, 2024, under Superior Court Case No. 21STCV10554.

The Court orders quashed the Subpoena for Business Records issued to Centinela Hospital Medical Center/Radiology Dept. on June 28, 2024, under Superior Court Case No. 21STCV10554.

The Court orders quashed the Subpoena for Business Records issued to Torrance Memorial Medical Center/Medical on June 28, 2024, under Superior Court Case No. 21STCV10554.

The Court orders quashed the Subpoena for Business Records issued to Torrance Memorial Medical Center/Business Office on June 28, 2024, under Superior Court Case No. 21STCV10554.

The Court orders quashed the Subpoena for Business Records issued to Torrance Memorial Medical Center/Radiology Dept. on June 28, 2024, under Superior Court Case No. 21STCV10554.

The Court orders quashed the Subpoena for Business Records issued to USC Eisner Family Medical Center on June 28, 2024, under Superior Court Case No. 21STCV10554.

BACKGROUND

This is a landlord/tenant action. Plaintiff Asja Cooper (“Plaintiff”) sued her former landlord, defendant Paul Ngwoke (“Defendant”), on March 18, 2021 for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, premises liability, and related claims.

On June 28, 2024, Defendant served subpoenas on seven (7) medical care providers, seeking complete medical records for Plaintiff’s minor child, without limitation in time or scope. (See Lavi Decl., ¶ 3 and Exh. A.) Defendant demanded the third-party medical providers produce the noticed documents on July 26, 2024.

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash Defendant’s subpoenas. Defendant filed no opposition, and Plaintiff no reply.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 states that “[i]f 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).)  “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.”  (Id.)  Subdivision (b) provides that a party may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a). (Id., § 1987.1(b).) 

Analysis

Defendant’s seven (7) subpoenas seek all of Plaintiff’s minor daughter’s medical records, without limitation, for all care ever provided to her by the deponents.

Plaintiff objects that these subpoenas impermissibly infringe on her daughter’s right to privacy in her medical records. The Court agrees.

All unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is presumptively 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.) When the information sought to be discovered impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, certain protectionns apply. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) Where discovery implicates the constitutional right to privacy, the court must balance competing rights — the right of a litigant to discover relevant facts and the right of an individual to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Ibid.) 

“The party asserting a privacy right must establish [1] a legally protected privacy interest, [2] an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and [3] a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th ], 35–37 ... .) 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. (Id. at pp. 37–40 ... .)”

(Williams (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

“[E]ven when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy.  . . . [I]f an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective . . . [meaning] the least intrusive means to satisfy the interest. Mere convenience of means or cost will not satisfy that test for that would make expediency and not the compelling interest the overriding value.” (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855 [internal quotes and citations omitted].) 

Plaintiff has established a protected interest, reasonable expectation, and serious intrusion where Defendant seeks to delve into private medical records. The matter requires no further discussion.

Because Plaintiff has carried her burden, Defendant has the burden to raise legitimate and important countervailing interests. Defendant filed no opposition. It has not carried its burden to rebut Plaintiff’s showing. Plaintiff need not – indeed, cannot – identify feasible alternatives that meet Defendant’s interests, because Defendant has established none.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in its entirety. The Court orders quashed all seven subpoenas subject to Plaintiff’s motion.