Case Number: BC518181    Hearing Date: July 17, 2014    Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

GEORGE and BECKY WILLIAMS, )
) Case Number BC518181
Plaintiffs, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
v. )
) Date of Hearing:
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., ) July 17, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
____________________________________)

The Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Medical Records to Young J. Ko, M.D. brought by Plaintiff George Williams came on for hearing on July 17, 2014. Plaintiffs George and Becky Williams appeared through their counsel of record, ________________. Defendant Ford Motor Company appeared through its counsel of record, ________________.

The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, hereby ORDERS:

The Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED; provided, however, the subpoena shall be modified to order the production of all medical records, billing records, radiological records and films pertaining to Plaintiff from the five years prior to August 15, 2011, as well as all such records of the Plaintiff as they relate to respiratory conditions, illness, or problems without limitation as to time.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of July, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

GEORGE and BECKY WILLIAMS, )
) Case Number BC518181
Plaintiffs, )
) STATEMENT OF DECISION
v. )
) Date of Hearing:
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., ) July 17, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
____________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. The principal case, filed by Plaintiffs George and Becky Williams (“Plaintiffs”), relates to a 1992 Lincoln-Mercury vehicle, manufactured by Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) purchased from Defendant Sonic-Carson LM, Inc., in 1992, and destroyed by fire in an incident on August 15, 2011.

2. Apparently, the vehicle in question ignited while it was turned off and parked in the garage. The resulting fire caused personal injuries due to smoke and fire, as well as property damage to the Plaintiffs’ home and belongings.

3. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 13, 2013 alleging causes of action for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, strict product liability, failure to warn, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.

4. On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff-in-intervention State-Farm (“State-Farm”), as the Plaintiffs’ insurer, filed a motion for leave to intervene. The motion to intervene was granted by order dated January 6, 2014, with State-Farm to file a copy of its Complaint within 5 days. A demurrer to the Complaint-in-intervention was filed in February 4th, 2014, and sustained by order dated April 30, 2014.

5. A demurrer and motion to strike was filed against the Complaint on November 6, 2013. The opposition was filed on May 28, 2014. By order dated June 11, 2014, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to the seventh, eighth, and ninth cause of action, and sustained without leave as to the fifth and sixth causes of action. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on July 1, 2014.

6. Defendant served on Dr. Young J. Ko, M.D., a subpoena on May 16, 2014 demanding “All medical records, billing records, radiological records and films pertaining to George James Williams.” Motion, Exhibit A. Plaintiff brought the present motion on June 11, 2014, arguing that the subpoena is overbroad, irrelevant, and violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

7. Defendant filed its Opposition on July 3, 2014.

8. Motion to quash subpoena – Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary to protect a witness. Section 1987.1 provides, “If 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.”

9. The FAC seeks recovery on property damage, personal injury from fire and smoke inhalation, and from reduced ability to work as a result of such injuries. FAC at ¶19. As such, discovery related to Plaintiff’s injuries, property damages, and his ability to work are all relevant to the suit. See Cal. Evid. Code §210. Based on the correspondence between Plaintiff and Defense Counsel, it seems apparent that the parties agree that discovery related to any pre-existing respiratory problems is permissible in its entirety. Opposition, Exhibit A, Letter Dated June 6, 2014.

10. Without a doubt, Defendant’s request for all of Dr. Ko’s records, without regard to how remote in time they may be to the incident, is clearly overbroad. Even if Plaintiff has put in issue the question of his ability to work, it stretches the limits of credulity to assume that his medical records from the far past would have any tendency to prove or disprove the extent of his disability stemming from the incident. As such, Defendant is otherwise only entitled to such Dr. Ko’s records pertaining to Plaintiff from the five years prior to the incident.

11. Plaintiff argues that the discovery into all aspects of his health constitutes an invasion of his privacy based upon mere speculation unsupported by facts. Opposition at 5:16-17. While it is certainly true that Defendant’s discovery will necessarily impinge upon Plaintiff’s privacy rights, Plaintiff cannot place the issue of his ability to work at issue, then thereafter forestall Defendant’s ability to engage in discovery and present a full defense by thereafter claiming an invasion to his right to privacy. Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim here, the information sought by Defendant is not “mere speculation.”

12. As noted in the Declaration of James L. Caplan, M.D. (“Caplan Declaration”), “[h]eart disease is known to potentially cause and lead to shortness of breath, and diabetes and hypertension are known causes of heart disease.” Id. at ¶6. In light of Defendant’s representation that Plaintiff had prior history of heart disease, it then becomes more than mere speculation as to whether such conditions existed, and if they did, whether they might have caused the reduction in Plaintiff’s ability to work.

13. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to quash the subpoena for production of medical records to Young J. Ko, M.D.; provided, however, the subpoena shall be modified to order the production of all medical records, billing records, radiological records and films pertaining to Plaintiff from the five years prior to August 15, 2011, as well as all such records of the Plaintiff as they relate to respiratory conditions, illness, or problems without limitation as to time.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of July, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE