Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV03076, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV03076    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

MARIAM VAROSYAN, et al.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

      CASE NO.: 20STCV03076

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS WILLIAMS ALFREDO ALVAREZ-MOLINEROS, MAYRA LORENA ALVAREZ MORALES, JHOSSELIN MAYERLI GUAJACA ALVAREZ, AND MARIA JOSE GUAJACA ALVAREZ’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ MOUNTAINS RECREATION AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AND EVANS WILLIAM PAUL RAMSEY’S SUBPOENAS FOR MEDICAL, BILLING, HEALTH INSURANCE, AND HEALTH RECORDS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

October 24, 2022

         

On May 22, 2020, plaintiffs Williams Alfredo Alvarez-Molineros (“Williams”), Mayra Lorena Alvarez Morales (“Mayra’), Jhosselin Mayerli Guajaca Alvarez (“Jhosselin”) and Maria Jose Guajaca Alvarez (“Maria”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action arising from a multi-vehicle collision that occurred on August 4, 2019.  Plaintiffs allege they were involved in a car accident with defendant Evans William Paul Ramsey (“Ramsey”), who was operating a vehicle owned by defendant Mountain Recreations and Conservation Authority (“MRCA”). 

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this “omnibus” motion to quash 16 subpoenas issued for Plaintiffs’ medical and educational records.  Williams seeks to quash subpoenas issued to: (1) California Urgent Care Centers, (2) Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center, (3) Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center/Business Office, (4) Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Cener/Radiology, (5) Grant P. Williams, M.D., (6) Khalid Ahmed, M.D., (7) National Drugworks Inc., (8) Pain Relief Health Care Center, (9) Kirankumar R. Vyas, M.D., (10) Reliable Medical Supply, Inc., (11) Technical Surgery Support, and (12) Department of Health Care Services/Office of Legal Services (“DHCS”). 

Williams’s records sought by these subpoenas are described as: “Any and all documents and records, and all writings, including, but not limited to, all paramedic and ambulance records; any and all itemized statements of the billing charges, insurance records and claims; any and all medical records and x-rays, a complete list of film and/or digital diagnostic imaging inventory, pathology records, pathology reports, and pathology lab results pertaining to the care, treatment, and examination of [Williams].”

Jhosselin, Mayra and Maria each seek to quash subpoenas issued to DHCS.  Jhosselin additionally seeks to quash a subpoena issued to Los Angeles Unified School District Records Center (“District”).  The subpoena for Mayra’s records seeks: “Any and all insurance records, medical records, all writings, correspondence, payments, claims, photographs, explanation of benefits (EOB's), and any other documents contained within the insurance file, pertaining to [Mayra].” 

The Court cannot determine the language in the subpoenas issued to DHCS and District for Jhosselin and Maria’s records.  They are not attached to Exhibit A, and the Court cannot even review the language of the subpoenas by using Plaintiffs’ separate statement.  In Plaintiffs’ separate statement, Plaintiffs state that they “refer the Court to Exhibit A, produced herewith for the objectionable subpoena language regarding the above providers.”  A separate statement is designed to be “full and complete” so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.  (CRC 3.1345, subd. (c).)  Requesting the Court refer to another document defeats the purpose of a separate statement.  Additionally, the Court notes that Exhibit A consists of over a hundred pages.  This document also includes numerous subpoenas for Williams’s records which are not even at issue in this motion, which requires that the Court unnecessarily spend its limited resources searching for the relevant information.   The Court further notes that this “omnibus” motion is improper because Plaintiffs should have filed separate motions, paid 4 separate filing fees, and reserved 4 separate hearing slots. 

The hearing on this motion is therefore CONTINUED to November 18, 2022, so Plaintiffs can submit a revised declaration including the missing subpoenas to DHCS and District for Jhosselin and Maria’s records.  Plaintiffs are ordered to pay 3 additional filing fees and file proof of payment no later than November 10, 2022. 

 

 

Moving party to give notice.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.