2013-00145662-CU-DF
Heidi Spiess vs. Gateway Community Charters
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

Schwartz, JenniferPlaintiff Heidi Spiess’ (“Spiess”) motion to quash or modify subpoenas for medical and
psychological records is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The case presents an employment dispute. Spiess alleges that Defendant Gateway
Community Charters (“Gateway”) wrongfully terminated and defamed her in 2012. In
response to discovery requests, Spiess asserted that the incident has caused her
emotional distress as well as stress-related medical problems, including headaches
and numbness in the face and hands. Spiess identified her primary care physician
and a therapist as the professionals who have treated these symptoms. Accordingly,
Gateway attempted to subpoena five years of Spiess’ records from each professional.
Spiess now moves to quash on grounds that the records are private and privileged in
part, and that the subpoenas are overbroad.

Notwithstanding Spiess’ privacy interest in the records, the court concludes that the
issues in the case confer upon Gateway a compelling need for the medical records
held by Dr. Liu. The court finds that these records are directly relevant to the issues
and that the subpoenas are narrowly tailored to that end. Thus, the motion to quash or
modify the subpoena issued to Dr. Liu is DENIED.

With respect to records of psychotherapy held by Dr. York, the motion to quash the
subpoena is DENIED, but the alternative motion to modify the subpoena is GRANTED.
According to Spiess, her husband attended some of the psychotherapy sessions to
which the records relate, and he has a right of privacy in the records. Furthermore, his
disclosures in psychotherapy, and other disclosures or notes that focus on him alone,
do not appear to be relevant. With respect to Spiess’ right of privacy in the records of
psychotherapy, however, the court reaches the opposite conclusion: Spiess has
placed her mental wellbeing at issue, Gateway has a compelling need for records
reflecting her mental wellbeing, the records are directly relevant, and the records are
narrowly tailored to Gateway’s compelling need.

The court orders Dr. York to produce the subpoenaed records of psychotherapy to
Spiess’ counsel, not to defense counsel. Spiess’ counsel shall then bates-number the
records and produce them with redactions protecting Spiess’ husband’s right of
privacy. Otherwise, the records must be produced unredacted. Spiess’ counsel shall
serve a privilege log at the time the records are produced so that Gateway can
challenge any assertion of Spiess’ husband’s privacy rights if it wishes. Counsel shall
meet and confer thoroughly before such a challenge is brought.

Furthermore, the court orders counsel jointly to craft a stipulated protective order
limiting dissemination of all the subpoenaed records to attorneys in the case and their
staff, experts, court reporters, and the court and its staff. The protective order shall
expressly incorporate the provisions of CRC 2.550-2.551 regarding the sealing of
records.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as
required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel for moving party is directed to contact
counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the
court’s tentative ruling procedure. If counsel for moving party is unable to contact
counsel for opposing party prior to hearing, counsel for moving party shall be available
at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without
following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B). The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.