2016-00194175-CU-PA

Mary Alice Rogers vs. Summer Angel Ramirez

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Modify Subpoena to Sutter Medical Foundation

Filed By: Rogers, Mary Alice

Self-represented plaintiff Mary Alice Rogers’ (“Plaintiff”) motion for a protective order is DENIED.

On May 1, 2018, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to quash two subpoenas filed by intervenor CSAA Insurance Exchange on the ground that Plaintiff failed to cite proper authority in support of her motion. At the hearing, the Court asked the parties to discuss the subpoena issue. Thereafter, the parties agreed to limit the subpoenas to the body parts at issue in the action (Plaintiff’s spine, neck, back, shoulders, lower extremity symptoms and sciatica). CSAA then reissued the subpoenas to Sutter Physicians Services and Sutter Medical Foundation seeking Plaintiff’s medical records regarding the body parts at issue. The subpoenas do not contain any applicable time period.

Plaintiff now moves for a protective order to limit the two subpoenas to five years from

the date of the motor vehicle collision of May 13, 2014. Plaintiff contends Sutter has provided her with medical care for over twenty years and, pursuant to Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, the subpoenas seek medical records that are not relevant to the case.

In opposition, CSAA in a single sentence concludes that “five years of records from the date of loss will not provide [CSAA] with enough information to evaluate her claim and to engage in settlement negotiations.”

As to items protected by the right to privacy, the threshold requirement is that such items must be “directly relevant” to the issue in the case. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844; Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379.) As recognized by Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844,863-865, by seeking damages based on injuries to certain body parts, Plaintiff did not tender her life-long medical history. An implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Id. at p. 859.)

Here, however, Plaintiff does not dispute that the subpoenas are properly limited to the body parts at issue. Rather, Plaintiff seeks to limit the subpoenas to five years prior to the accident. Yet, Plaintiff makes no compelling argument to establish why the subpoenas, which are limited to the parts of Plaintiff’s body directly at issue, should be limited in time. Indeed, as the subpoenas are limited to the body parts that are directly relevant to the issues in the case, all prior treatment in connection with these body parts is directly relevant.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.