Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV26627, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV26627 Hearing Date: October 13, 2022 Dept: 31
MOTIONS
TO QUASH FOR VARGAS IS MOOT; MOTION TO QUASH FOR MARQUEZ IS DENIED
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 16, 2022, Plaintiff Abel Sanchez Vargas filed a Motion to Quash or Modify Defendants’ Subpoena for the Production of Medical Records. Defendants filed opposing papers on September 29, 2022. No reply has been filed.
On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff Amelia Marquez moved to Quash or
Modify Defendants’ Subpoena for the Production of Medical Records. Defendants
filed opposing papers on September 29, 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 subpoenas for Plaintiff Abel Sanchez Vargas have been withdrawn after it was brought to their attention that there was a typo in the subpoenas and Defendants sought medical records dating from the year 2018 and not 2000. (Kerr Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs’ counsel has been served with notice of its withdrawal.
Accordingly, the Motion to Quash the Subpoenas as to Abel Sanchez Vargas is MOOT.
As to Plaintiff Amelia Marquez, Defendants assert that inquiries into Amelia’s medical records dating back to 2000 are relevant because Plaintiff Amelia Marquez has placed her health and the time frame at issue. At her deposition, Amelia testified that after moving into the subject property around 1997, she began to experience health problems due to the conditions of the subject property. (Kerr Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Amelia testified that on or about 2000 she suffered from headaches and the inability to sleep. (Id.)
Plaintiffs’ Counsel objected to Defendants’ initial subpoenas which requested information from January 1, 2010 and asked that Defendants limit the subpoena to 5 years and that it include specific language related to the medical issues Amelia claims she suffered due to the conditions of the subject property.
Defendants agreed to limit the language of the subpoenas but the amended subpoenas on August 25, 2022, by asking for Amelia’s medical records from January 1, 2000, to the present. (Kerr Decl. ¶ 9.) 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 22 years of Plaintiff Amelia’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.)
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 the past 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 Amelia Marquez. Moreover, the information requested has been limited in scope to only seek information related to Amelia’s treatment of alleged conditions and symptoms she suffered due to the conditions of the subject property. In addition, Amelia has testified that upon moving into the subject property in 1997, she began experiencing medical symptoms and, more specifically, that in 2000 she began to suffer headaches and inability to sleep. (Id.)
In light of Amelia’s assertions, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to medical records at least from 2000 as they are entitled to determine whether those ailments identified were pre-existing; whether the source of the ailment was or has been identified; whether the ailments worsened or lessened through time, etc.
For the stated reasons, the Motion to Quash is DENIED.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Abel Sanchez
Vargas’s Motion to Quash is MOOT.
Plaintiff Amelia Marquez’s
Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give notice.