Case Number: BC696001 Hearing Date: April 05, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

ELLIS T. CARDENAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT GIBBS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC696001

Hearing Date: April 5, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS

Background

Plaintiff Ellis T. Cardenas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Robert Gibbs (“Defendant Gibbs”), Stephen Hopper (“Defendant Hopper”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for motor vehicle negligence on March 1, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that he was lawfully walking across the street in a crosswalk when he was struck by a vehicle owned by Hooper and driven by Gibbs. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered leg and back injuries. In his discovery responses, Plaintiff lists the “San Vicente Medical Center” as a place where he was treated for his prostate. Accordingly, Defendant Hopper served two subpoenas on this medical provider seeking Plaintiff’s medical, radiology, and billing records without limitation. Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas, which Defendants oppose, arguing that his prostate surgery may relate to his injuries in this accident. The Court grants the motion and orders Defendant Hopper and his counsel to pay sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

A court “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. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (CCP § 1987.1.) The court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas. (See, e.g., Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-83.) The parties’ discussion of their meet and confer efforts, or lack thereof, is irrelevant as there is no meet and confer requirement in bringing a motion to quash. (CCP § 1987.1.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves the court to quash two business record subpoenas issued to San Vicente Medical Center issued on January 25, 2019. The first subpoena seeks “any and all hospital records, including microfilm, microfiche emergency room reports, x-ray reports, out-patient records physical therapy records, and any other information pertaining to [Plaintiff].” (Melody-Rosenfeld Decl., Exh. 1.) The second subpoena seeks “any and all reports and films.” (Id., Exh. 2.)

It is well established that medical records are afforded constitutional protection under a persons’ right to privacy. “[A]lthough in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiff have unquestionably waived their physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849.) “The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.) “Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice.” (Id.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s prostate surgery at San Vicente Medical Center may be directly related to Plaintiff’s back and leg pain. Not only is Defendant’s argument wholly without merit on its face, Defendant provides no evidence (e.g., a declaration from a medical professional) suggesting that there is any relationship between Plaintiff’s prostate surgery and pain in his back or legs. Simply, this is an invasion of Plaintiff’s most private medical information. Therefore, the Court grants the motion to quash these subpoenas. Based on this ruling, the Court need not reach the issue whether the subpoenas were addressed to the correct entity and served properly.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Stephen Hopper and his attorneys of record in the amount of $2,160.00. “[I]n making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (CCP § 1987.2(a).)

The Court finds that sanctions are justified in this case, as the subpoena was oppressive and the opposition is wholly without merit. The Court orders Defendant Hopper and counsel-of-record to pay sanctions, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,060 based on five hours of attorney time at a reasonable billing rate of $200 per hour plus the filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to quash the subpoenas to the San Vicente Medical Center. The Court orders Defendant Hopper and his counsel-of-record to pay, jointly and severally, $1,060 in sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall give notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: April 5, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court