Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC710511, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC710511    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 18, 2018, plaintiffs Nicole Porter (“Plaintiff”) and Joziah Porter filed this action against defendants Cesar Fabricio Gomez and Haldeman, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from a July 1, 2016, motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff seeks to quash Defendants’ subpoenas to the following medical facilities: (1) Salvation Army, (2) Elite Physical Therapy, (3) Testimonial Community Love Center, (4) Path of Life Ministries, (5) The Salvation Army – Bell Lighthouse Corps, (6) Your Health in Motion, (7) Rio Hondo Mental Health Center, (8) Central City Community Health Center, (9) Riverside County Mental Health, (10) All Star Physical Therapy, (11) Radnet Management, Inc., and (12) Radnet Corp. – Billing.  Based on Plaintiff’s separate statement, it appears these subpoenas seek one of three categories of documents: (1) mental health records, (2) homeless records from Salvation Army relating to another case involving exposure to rats and bacterial diseases, and (3) medical records (from Elite Physical Therapy & All Star Physical Therapy). 

Plaintiff argues these subpoenas that seek her medical records are overbroad because they are not limited by treatment date or any body parts.  Plaintiff claims that mental health records have no relevance to this action because she is not claiming any mental health injuries beyond “garden variety noneconomic damages secondary to [her] orthopedic injuries.”  (Motion, 9:7-8.)  She also argues that her mental health and homeless records are subject to the right to privacy.   

The Court notes that, in Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s separate statement, Defendants state that court intervention is no longer necessary with respect to the medical records.  Also, Plaintiff’s reply only addresses the subpoenas for her mental health records.  Accordingly, this ruling will only address Defendants’ subpoenas for Plaintiff’s mental health records. 

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.) 

Generally, 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.)  The psychotherapist-patient privilege “is too important to be brushed aside when the mental condition of the plaintiff may be only peripherally involved” and in order for there to be direct relevance to the plaintiff’s mental condition, there must be “specific averments or reasonable interpretations drawn from the pleading which clearly place mental condition in issue.”  (Ibid.)  However, “[b]ecause only the patient, and not the party seeking disclosure, knows both the nature of the ailments for which recovery is sought and the general content of the psychotherapeutic communications, the burden rests upon the patient initially to submit some showing that a given confidential communication is not directly related to the issue he has tendered to the court.”  (In re Lifschultz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 436.)

Defendants submit that Plaintiff claims she suffered depression, anxiety, and Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (“CRPS”) as a result of the incident.  (Opp., Ex. A.)  She also indicated in discovery responses served in connection with another lawsuit filed in 2017 against Salvation Army, that she suffered from anxiety and depression, and she treated with four mental health providers: (1) Rio Hondo Mental Health, (2) Enki Mental Health, (3) Riverside County Mental Health, and (4) Central Community Mental Health.  (Opp., Ex. B.)  Defendants’ expert, Joshua P. Prager, states that Plaintiff’s mental health records are needed to evaluate Plaintiff’s complaints of CPRS.  (Opp., Prager Decl., ¶¶ 12-13.)  Dr. Prager states that, in rare cases, CRPS appears spontaneously, without apparent cause, which is more likely to occur during times of increased emotional stress.  (Prager Decl., ¶ 9.)  According to Dr. Prager, psychological and behavioral factors can exacerbate the pain and dysfunction associated with CRPS and could help maintain the condition in some patients.  (Prager Decl., ¶ 10.)  Therefore, effective management of CRPS requires that these psychosocial and behavioral aspects be addressed as part of an integrated multidisciplinary treatment approach.  (Prager Decl., ¶ 11.) 

On reply, Plaintiff states that she is not claiming that she suffers from CRPS as a consequence of the subject incident, but that this is a chronic pain case.  (Reply, 3:13-16.)  This argument is undercut by Plaintiff’s discovery responses, which clearly identified “Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome”, as a symptom that she attributes to the incident.  Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff is claiming “garden variety” noneconomic damages means that the Court cannot compel her to submit to a mental examination, not that her mental health records are off-limits.  (See Code. Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Defendants have met their burden to show that the requested records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claimed injuries.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED.  As Plaintiff’s motion is denied, her request for sanctions is also DENIED.  The Court cannot compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization, but notes that if the medical providers fail to produce documents pursuant to the subpoena, Defendants may file motions to compel their compliance. 

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.