Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV26627, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV26627 Hearing Date: October 12, 2022 Dept: 31
MOTION
TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM IS GRANTED
Background
On
July 15, 2020, Romelia Leon de Garcia; Belisario Garcia; Jesus Alexander Garcia
by and through his guardian ad litem Romelia Leon De Garcia, et al.
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Bruce A. Roden and Susan
M. Roden, et al.
The
First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for:
1) NEGLIGENT
FAILURE TO PROVIDE HABITABLE PREMISES;
2) COLLECTION
OF RENT FOR SUBSTANDARD DWELLING;
3) NUISANCE;
4) INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
5) NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
6) PREMISES
LIABILITY;
7) BREACH
OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY;
8) BREACH
OF THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT;
9) VIOLATION
OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200 et seq.;
10) WILLFUL
INTERRUPTION OF SERVICES;
11) RETALIATION;
12) VIOLATION
OF CITY OF BELL GARDENS ORDINANCE No. 900-U; and
13) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019.
Defendants Gordon Cole, LLC; AQP Management, Inc. and Joel Estrada filed a Cross-Complaint against Bruce A. Roden and Susan M. Roden, et al. for:
1) Equitable INDEMNITY.
2) Implied Equitable Indemnity and
Comparative Contribution; and
3) Declaratory Relief
On July 16, 2022, Defendants Bruce A. Roden and Susan M. Roden, et al. filed a Cross-Complaint against Defendants Gordon Cole, LLC; AQP Management, Inc., and Joel Estrada for:
1) Equitable INDEMNITY.
2) Implied Equitable Indemnity and
Comparative Contribution; and
3) Declaratory Relief
On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff Belisario Garcia moved to Quash or Modify Defendants’ Subpoena for Production of Medical Records.
Defendants filed opposing
papers on September 18, 2022. Plaintiff filed a reply on October 05, 2022.
Legal Standard
If a subpoena requires the attendance of a
witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored
information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue
therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably
made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion
after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
Discussion
Defendants assert that inquiries into Plaintiff Belisario Garcia’s Medical records dating back to 2010 are relevant because Plaintiff Belisario Garcia has placed his health and the time frame at issue.
Belisario testified that shortly after moving into the subject property in 1998, he began to have breathing problems on and off due to the conditions of the subject property. (Kerr Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Defendants propounded discovery to obtain the name of providers whom Plaintiff Belisario Garcia had consulted with related to breathing/respiratory issues. Consequently, Defendants issued a subpoena to AltaMed Medical Group for medical records pertaining to Plaintiff Belisario Garcia from January 01, 2010, to the present. (Kerr Decl. ¶ 9.) Moreover, Plaintiff Belisario Garcia asserts that he suffered from breathing problems before moving into the subject property, but they were not as frequent. (Kerr Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.)
Plaintiff objects to the subpoena and requests that it be limited to 5 years rather than 12 years and that it include language specific to the injuries Belisario alleges to have suffered due to the conditions at the subject property such as cockroach bites, rashes, respiratory problems, asthma-like symptoms, colds, headaches, allergic reactions, and nose bleeds.
Defendants agree to limit the scope of injuries as requested by Plaintiff and served an amended subpoena on August 25, 2022. Defendants assert that the amended subpoena is proper since the records are directly relevant and within the proper time frame. (See Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387 [finding that a party seeking constitutionally protected information in discovery has the burden of establishing that information sought is directly relevant to claims]; see also Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017-18 [“the materials sought must be directly relevant to the issue of pain and suffering associated with the physical injuries petitioner sustained.”].)
Plaintiffs assert that Defendant failed to meet their burden by demonstrating that the information sought is directly relevant and necessary to the fair resolution of the case or a compelling need for 12 years of Plaintiff Belisario’s medical records. Plaintiffs assert that during the IDC on July 28, 2020, this Court agreed that limiting discovery responses to the last five years was fair because ten years was overbroad even for prior personal injuries involving the same body parts. (Hoetger Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court actually indicated that 5 years prior to the date this action was commenced would be a reasonable time period. However, if Plaintiff suffered from similar ailments before he moved into the subject premises, medical records for the time period during which he sought medical care for the same ailments will have to be produced.
Even if a litigant’s medical condition is at issue, the litigant does not waive their right to privacy as to otherwise protected aspects of their medical history, or some condition they may have suffered unrelated to the incident in question. (See Hale v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1424.) Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that the information sought is not relevant, but rather that it is overbroad in time and should be limited to 5 years.
In Alch v. Superior Court (2008), the Appeal Court explained:
“in the discovery context—and assuming a serious invasion of a privacy interest has been established—the [parties] must show they have a ‘compelling need’ for the data requested, and they may do so by showing the information is “directly relevant” and ‘essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.”
(Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425.)
Here, the information sought by Defendants is directly relevant and will help Defendants assess the issue of damages as to Plaintiff Belisario Garcia. Moreover, the information requested has been limited in scope to only seek information relating to Plaintiff Belisario’s treatment of alleged conditions and symptoms he suffered due to the conditions of the subject property. However, given the statute of limitations for the cause of action alleged by the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Belisario Garcia’s constitutional right to privacy, the Court agrees that limiting the scope to subpoena to the five years before this action was commenced is reasonable, with the caveat noted above.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Belisario Garcia’s
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum is GRANTED.
Plaintiff to give notice.