Case Number: BC503734 Hearing Date: April 25, 2014 Dept: 91
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records Pursuant to Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1, filed on 1/14/14 is GRANTED. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1. The court grants the alternative request to quash the subpoenas issued by Defendant, Dorothy Marie Dotson Family Trust.
An IDC is generally required prior to a hearing on a motion to compel further discovery responses. General Order Updated 4/4/14, ¶ 12. The updated general order otherwise encourages the party to request an IDC for all other discovery disputes.
Plaintiff has shown good cause for the order as the subpoenas broadly seek all of Plaintiff’s medical records without any limitation. As such, they are overbroad and implicate Plaintiff’s right of privacy protecting against disclosure of her medical records. Plaintiff has the right of privacy as to medical conditions not implicated in the lawsuit. Plaintiff’s “lifetime” medical history is not discoverable. Britt v. Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port District), 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 (1978).
The subpoenas are unlimited as to time. Defendant is not entitled to unlimited medical records concerning unrelated conditions. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff’s injuries are limited to the bridge of her nose, right eyebrow, right knee, fractures to both elbows and forearms, with surgery required to the right elbow/forearm, as reflected in Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Defendant’s Ex. 13, 4:10-13. As the proponent of discovery, Defendant has not met its “threshold showing that the evidence sought is ‘directly relevant to the claim or defense.” Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.
The court imposes sanctions of $1,260 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and counsel for “persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery. …” Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2023.010.