Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV29407, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29407    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 4, 2020, plaintiff Vanessa Ojeda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Ramsey Michael Crawford (“Defendant”) arising from a May 13, 2019, motor vehicle collision.  On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed these three motions to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoenas directed to Jane Kong, M.D. (“Dr. Kong”), Qui Vu, M.D. (“Dr. Vu”), and PIH Health, HIM Department (“PIH Health”) (collectively, “Medical Providers”).  Each subpoena asked for Plaintiff’s complete medical and billing records “from the first date of treatment.”  Plaintiff objects to these subpoenas on the grounds that they are overbroad and violate her right to privacy. 

A deposition subpoena may request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony, as well as the production of business records.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)  The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “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 orders 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, subd. (a).)  “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 . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (a).)

When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowered by the very nature of the action.”  (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 43.)  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.) 

However, “although in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient . . . privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny.”  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849.)  The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.  (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s subpoenas for all her medical records because they are not limited in time.  In opposition, Defendant argues that the subpoenas are proper because the Medical Providers were not even disclosed in Plaintiff’s discovery responses but only first identified in Plaintiff’s deposition.  Defendant argues that at the very least, he is entitled to 10 years of medical records from Dr. Kong and PIH, because she treated with them after an earlier car accident that occurred on April 25, 2019, shortly before the underlying incident occurred on May 13, 2019 (“May 13 Accident”).  Defendant does not request 10 years of records from Dr. Vu, as Plaintiff appears to have only treated with Dr. Vu at one time in her life after the May 13 Accident. 

Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.  Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions in part.  Dr. Kong and PIH must produce responsive documents from January 1, 2009, to the present, whereas Dr. Vu is only ordered to produce responsive documents from January 1, 2019 to the present.    

The court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or 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, subd. (a).) 

Both parties request that the Court impose sanctions.  Plaintiff’s failure to include the Medical Providers in her discovery responses does not warrant the release of all her medical information in retaliation.  However, it is clear that at least some of the information requested in the subpoenas is relevant and that practically speaking, there would be no invasion of privacy because Plaintiff only treated at PIH and with Dr. Kong for two car accidents and treated with Dr. Vu exclusively for the May 13 Accident.  Overall, the bad faith in making the motion is counterbalanced by Defendant’s overbroad subpoena.  Therefore, both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.  

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.