Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV07415, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07415    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

           On March 1, 2022, Plaintiff Mario Linares Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Rene Cabrera Ramirez, Seed Landcare, Inc., and Does 1-50 (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 26, 2020.  

On June 2, 2022, Defendants served deposition subpoenas for records on (1) Attarchi Medical Group, Inc, (2) Dream Anesthesia, (3) West Coast Nuero, LLC, (4) Peyman Gravori, M.D., (5) Starpoint Surgery Center, (6) Starpoint Healthcare/Billing, (7) Specialty Surgical Center, (8) Specialty Surgical Center of Beverly Hills/Billing for Plaintiff’s medical, billing, radiology, and insurance records. (Paragraph 2 of Menoyo Declaration attached to Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Medical Records, Billing Records and Radiology, filed June 24, 2022.)

On June 2, 2022, Defendants also served a deposition subpoena for records on Lopez Electric for Plaintiff’s employment records. (Paragraph 2 of Menoyo Declaration attached to Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Defendants’ Deposition Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Employment Records.)

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the two separate motions to quash deposition subpoenas to which the Menoyo Declarations were attached as indicated above.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

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 of 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 of 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 of Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (a).) 

When a plaintiff puts his or 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.)

III.     DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues the subpoenas are overbroad and he seeks to quash or modify them.  Further, Plaintiff asserts that he is not making a claim for lost wages or employment, so the subpoena on his employer, Lopez Electric, should be quashed entirely.

Plaintiff acknowledges Defendant is entitled to a portion of his medical records, but asserts that, as written, the subpoenas are overbroad.  While the subpoenas seeking medical records and imaging may be overbroad, as they seek “any and all documents and records pertaining to care, treatment, and examination, including but not limited to, all office, emergency room, inpatient/outpatient charts, pathology slide of specimens, hard copy of EEG’s, ECG’s & EKG’s, color photographs and/or color surgical photographs & electronic and/or electronic charts,” Defendants filed no opposition to this Motion and has made no argument in support of obtaining all the records he seeks, and no argument as to how the subpoenas may be modified rather than quashed. 

As Plaintiff makes no claims for lost wages or employment, his employment records would not appear to be relevant and Defendants have not argued otherwise. 

Accordingly, the Motion to quash the deposition subpoenas issued by Defendants is GRANTED. 

“[T]he 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 of Civ. Proc., § 1987.2.)  There was not substantial justification for Defendants to seek “any and all” medical records and billing for Plaintiff for “any and all” dates and “any and all” employment records.

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendants and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,123.30 for two hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $500.00, plus two filling fees in the amount of $61.65 for each motion to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. 

IV.     CONCLUSION

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.