Case Number: 19STCV08568 Hearing Date: September 17, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Quash Subpoena

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2019, Plaintiff Margo Migatz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Bristol Farms alleging negligence for an employee slamming into Plaintiff while exiting the elevator on November 20, 2018.

On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name Defendant Miles Paramore as Doe 1.

On July 9, 2019, the Court consolidated case number 19STCV08568 with case number BC683857 for purposes of trial only.

On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash deposition subpoenas Defendant Bristol Farms had issued to medical providers pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for September 8, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks that the Court quash Defendant Bristol Farms’ deposition subpoenas issued to six medical providers because they are overbroad and seek information that is irrelevant and protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

In making an order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

A motion to quash a subpoena must be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration showing a good faith and reasonable attempt at an informal resolution took place. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2025.410, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

“[P]laintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing [a] lawsuit, . . . they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 (citation and footnote omitted).) However, “. . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

On June 11, 2019, Defendant Bristol Farms issued deposition subpoenas to the following non-parties: (1) Cedars Sinai Medical Center/Medical, (2) Cedars Sinai Medical Center/Billing Office, (3) Dynamic Home Health Care Services, (4) Carol A. Lin, M.D., (5) Marielia Morrow, M.D., and (6) Blue Shield of California. (Geibel Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exh. 1.)

The documents requested in the deposition subpoenas issued to Cedars Sinai Medical Center/Medical, Carol A. Lin, M.D., Marielia Morrow, M.D., and Blue Shield of California seek “. . . all medical documents . . . pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of [Plaintiff] . . . from any and all dates. . . .” (Ibid.) The documents requested in the deposition subpoena issued to Cedars Sinai Medical Center/Billing Office seeks “all . . . records of payment and /or discount regarding any medical billing[, and] . . . billing information . . . pertaining to [Plaintiff] . . . from any and all dates.” (Ibid.) The documents requested in the deposition subpoena issued to Dynamic Home Health Care Services seeks “. . . all x-ray films . . . and any other films specific to [Plaintiff] . . . from any and all dates.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues these subpoenas are overbroad, seek irrelevant information, and impinge on Plaintiff’s right to privacy because they are not limited to documents pertaining to the body parts for which she claims injuries in this case and they are not temporally limited. (Motion, pp. 10:24-13:23.) Plaintiff has acknowledged that Defendant is entitled to “medical records and payment records that reasonably relate to [P]laintiff’s fractures to her right leg, hip and knee and her osteoporosis condition, and [] where diagnosis, care and treatment for similar orthopedic injuries and her osteoporosis was rendered within 10 yeas before injuries or occurring after the injuries. Plaintiff agreed to allow production of medical records relating to her original diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis (brittle bones) and prior low back fractures, regardless of whether such treatment occurred prior to the 2016 and 2018 fractures because the severity of [P]laintiff’s injuries are related to her condition of osteoporosis. . . . Plaintiff agreed that hospital billing records and insurance payments relating to her hip, leg and knee fractures was properly discoverable. (Motion, p. 10:10-10:23.)

Defendant Bristol Farms argues that the subject deposition subpoenas are proper because Plaintiff has alleged that she cannot walk, she had various physical conditions at the time of the accident that affected her ability to walk, and that she has osteoporosis. (Opposition, pp. 7:25-10:27.) Defendant Bristol Farms also argues that Plaintiff’s claim of having brittle bones due to her osteoporosis condition enables Defendant Bristol Farms to seek information regarding Plaintiff’s decrease in estrogen and hormone treatments because that is another cause for bone loss. (Opposition, pp. 9:16-10:22.)

The Court agrees with both parties, to a degree. Plaintiff is correct in arguing that the subpoenas are overbroad as to time and the information sought. Defendant Bristol Farms is not entitled to Plaintiff’s entire medical and billing history simply because of Plaintiff’s osteoporosis and the allegation that various conditions affected Plaintiff’s ability to walk. This would necessarily include information clearly outside the scope of this litigation, such as medical and billing records related to marriage therapy.

The Court also finds Plaintiff’s broad allegation that various conditions present at the time of the incident affected her ability to walk does not enable Defendant Bristol Farms to Plaintiff’s entire medical and billing history. While this may be an example of poor pleading, it does not open up records from Plaintiff’s pediatrician’s office as such records are too far attenuated from this matter. The Court recommends Defendant Bristol Farms engage in written discovery seeking a clarification of Plaintiff’s contentions prior to seeking medical information based on Plaintiff’s claim that various conditions affected her ability to walk at the time of the incident.

Nevertheless, Defendant is correct in arguing that Plaintiff’s osteoporosis necessarily allows discovery of medical and billing records related to a decrease in estrogen and hormone treatments. Such information is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence relating to another cause for Plaintiff’s brittle bones.

Thus, it is in the interest of justice to issue a protective order limiting the subject subpoenas.

No party has requested sanctions and, thus, the Court declines to award sanctions.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The deposition subpoenas Defendant Bristol Farms issued to Cedars Sinai Medical Center/Medical, Cedars Sinai Medical Center/Billing Office, Dynamic Home Health Care Services, Carol A. Lin, M.D., Marielia Morrow, M.D., and Blue Shield of California shall be limited by a protective order. The only documents to be produced in response to these deposition subpoenas must pertain to either Plaintiff’s legs, knees, hips, back; Plaintiff’s ability to stand up or walk; Plaintiff’s osteoporosis; and Plaintiff’s estrogen or hormone treatments. Such documents may only be produced if dated between November 20, 2008 and the present.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.