Case Number: BC660311 Hearing Date: April 08, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

regina michelle compton,

Plaintiff,

v.

akyuz tugser,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC660311

Hearing Date: April 8, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to quash subpoenas

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Regina Michelle Compton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Akyuz Tugser (“Defendant”) based on a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff moves to quash subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical, insurance, and employment records that Defendant served on: (1) Cliffside Malibu; (2) Passages Treatment Center; (3) 5 Residential; (4) Cliffside Malibu-HR; (5) 21st Century Insurance Service Company; (6) State Farm General Insurance Company; (7) California Employment Development Dept.; (8) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; (9) Delano Regional Medical Center—Radiology; (10) Ridgecrest Regional Hospital—Radiology; (11) UCLA Health System Radiology; (12) Bakersfield Pain Management, Inc., John Brazil, M.D.; (13) Omni Family Health, Joseph S. Mansour, M.D.; (14) Sharma Medical Group; (15) Delano Regional Medical Center; (16) Ridgecrest Regional Hospital; (17) Medical Practice Management Resources, Bakersfield Pain Management, Inc.; (18) John Brazil M.D.; (19) Delano Regional Medical Center—Billing; (20) Ridgecrest Regional Hospital—Bills; and (21) UCLA Health System—Billing. The subpoenas seek all records about Plaintiff. Some are limited to records from January 1, 2009 to the present, and others are unlimited as to time. The motion is denied and the Court orders sanctions. The Court will issue a protective order if Plaintiff prepares and lodges one.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) In ruling on a motion to quash, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

A plaintiff who seeks to recover for personal injuries waives the physician-patient privilege to some extent, but does not waive the privilege with respect to the plaintiff’s lifetime medical history. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.) In this case, Plaintiff alleges the she suffered “severe injuries to her body and shock and injury to her nervous system” and that she suffers from “severe physical and nervous pain and suffering.” (Plaintiff’s Complaint at p. 5.) Plaintiff also alleges that the accident caused her to become addicted to opiods. (Reply Brief, at p. 1.) Plaintiff testified that she previously has been in rehabilitation facilities for addiction to methamphetamines and opiates as well as abuse of other substances on numerous occasions, beginning when she was 16 years old. (Fitzgerald Decl., Exh. D.) She testified that she tried opiates before the accident, when she was treating with a pain management doctor. (Ibid.) Plaintiff testified that, as a result of her addiction, she has had multiple accidents while intoxicated, including sustaining concussions and being knocked unconscious. (Ibid.) Plaintiff further testified that she had suffered back and neck injuries previously. (Ibid.)

Simply, Plaintiff has put her entire medical history at issue in this case. Plaintiff claims that she suffered physical and neurological injuries, as well as a relapse in her drug addiction. Defendant is entitled to determine any alternative explanations for, or contributing factors to, Plaintiff’s injuries. In other words, Defendant is entitled to investigate whether any of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries in this action are attributable to the numerous accidents she admits she has had while intoxicated, rather than the accident, or to other preexisting medical conditions. Defendants also are entitled to demonstrate at trial that Plaintiff’s drug addiction, which she attributes to the accident, is a pre-existing condition.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $1,295. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process, justifying the award of sanctions. The Court orders Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $925 based on five hours of attorney time at a billing rate of $185 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion to quash is denied. The Court orders Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $925 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall give notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: April 8, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court