Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV01323, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01323    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On December 16, 2022, plaintiff Maria de la Luz Santacruz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Aldi Supermarket Company (“Defendant”) asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that on January 5, 2021, she slipped and fell on the floor of Defendant’s store located at 1403 S. Baldwin Avenue in Arcadia, California. On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order quashing Defendant’s deposition subpoena directing nonparty Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (“Sedgwick”) to produce its business records, specifically:

ANY AND ALL INSURANCE RECORDS, MEDICAL RECORDS, BILLING, DIGITAL IMAGING, CORRESPONDENCE, PAYMENTS, WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS, CLAIMS AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE INSURANCE FILE, EXCLUDING ANY PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS, PERTAINING TO MARIA DE LA LUZ SANTACRUZ (DOB: 07/03/1974: AKA: MARIA SANTACRUZ: MARIA DE LA LUZ SANCHEZ) FROM 08/23/2005 TO, AND INCLUDING, THE PRESENT, RELATED TO THE 08/23/2005 WORK INCIDENT.

Although the caption page references a request for a protective order, no such argument is made in the notice of motion or memorandum of points and authorities. Accordingly, the Court treats the motion solely as a motion to quash.

As articulated in Plaintiff’s separate statement, Plaintiff argues that the production of her medical records relating to an alleged incident which occurred 16 years ago in 2005 (“Work Incident”) is irrelevant to the injuries she claims arising from the slip-and-fall underlying this present action. Plaintiff also argues that the production of these medical records violates 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.) 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.) Nevertheless, 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.) 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.)

Here, the subpoena is directed to Sedgwick to obtain information about a worker’s compensation claim filed by Plaintiff with her employer, the County of Los Angeles’s Probation Department, in connection with injuries sustained on August 23, 2005. Plaintiff stated in her discovery responses that she sustained in this case a right shoulder rotator cuff tear and suffers from pain to her right arm, right knee, neck, and back. Plaintiff’s employment records show that as part of her workers’ compensation claim for the Work Incident in 2005, Plaintiff reported that she suffered strain to her right shoulder and back. (Def.’s Opp., Exs. A-B.) Therefore, Defendant argues that Sedgwick’s records regarding the Work Incident are relevant to this action because they involve injuries to the same body part, Plaintiff’s right shoulder.  

In her reply brief, Plaintiff states that the Work Incident is irrelevant and that Defendant should never have received any of her employer’s files from 2005 in the first place. Plaintiff states that although she signed an authorization to release her employment records from the County of Los Angeles’s Probation Department, the authorization only permitted the production of records from January 5, 2011, to the present. Plaintiff emphasizes the fact that the Work Incident occurred 20 years ago and argues that there is an implicit limitation on discovery because Form Interrogatory No. 11.2 only asks for the disclosure of workers’ compensation claims made in “the past 10 years.” This argument is unpersuasive, as Form Interrogatory No. 10.1 also asks Plaintiff whether she had any complaints or injuries involving the same body part “[a]t any time before the [underlying incident].” The plain language of the form interrogatory which requires Plaintiff to provide information about injuries sustained “at any time” overrides any complaint that Plaintiff may have about the inadvertent production of records from her employer despite her limited authorization. The Court further concludes that the subpoena to Sedgewick is narrowly tailored because it only seeks Sedgwick’s records pertaining to this single Work Incident which undeniably involves the same body part – Plaintiff’s right shoulder – which Plaintiff claims to have injured as a result of Defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff’s citation to a trial court opinion ruling that medical records from 27 years ago are irrelevant is improper and unpersuasive because trial court rulings have no precedential value. (Santa Ana Hosp. Medical Center v. Belshe (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED.

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).) 

The Court finds that this motion was made without substantial justification and GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions. Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $630 consisting of 3 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $210 within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 3rd day of April 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.