Case Number: BC643532 Hearing Date: May 10, 2018 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas; Request for Sanctions, filed on 3/23/18 is GRANTED. Defendant has not met its burden of showing direct relevance or a compelling need for the overbroad request of records sought in the subpoenas.

The court can quash the subpoenas or issue a protective order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1.

The right to privacy is protected by the California Constitution. Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839. Where privacy rights are implicated, Defendant has to show that the records sought are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014; Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.

Even if the records are directly relevant, Defendant must show a compelling need for the discovery. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014. Defendant is not entitled to information concerning Plaintiff’s entire lifetime medical history.

The scope of permitted inquiry “depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court … .” Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 864.

Defendant contends, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that Plaintiff’s injuries are limited to injuries to his right knee. Opposition, Declaration of Danishwar, ¶ 3. Defendant has not shown why medical records of Plaintiff’s left knee is relevant. Defendant has not established with documentary evidence that Plaintiff “has been living with right knee osteoarthritis.” Id. Defendant’s counsel speculates that since Plaintiff is 83-years old, he “likely” has a history of knee problems. Id., ¶ 3.

Speculation over what the records might contain or that some portion of the records might be relevant is not sufficient to establish direct relevance. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1017.

The subpoenas request “any and all records” from four different medical facilities.

Motion, Ex. A-D. Defendant has not shown that such an unlimited request or a request limited to 10 years is directly relevant. Compelled disclosure must be “narrowly drawn” to avoid infringing on a party’s right to privacy for the sake of convenience. Fults v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 899, 904.

The court has discretion to award attorney’s fees and costs under CCP § 1987.2. The court awards Plaintiff fees and costs of $660 against Defendant, Forest Lawn Mortuary.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.