Case Number: KC065406    Hearing Date: September 16, 2014    Dept: O

Chappell, et al. v. Hechanova, et al. (KC065406)

1. Defendants D. and S. Hechanova’s MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Respondent: Plaintiffs Chappell, et al.

2. Defendants D. and S. Hechanova’s MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH BUSINESS RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS

Respondent: Plaintiff M. Chappell

TENTATIVE RULING

1. Motion to Reopen Discovery

Defendants D. and S. Hechanova’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED.

On motion of any party, the court may allow discovery proceedings to be completed, or a discovery motion to be heard, after the “cut-off” dates above; or, it may reopen discovery after the trial has been continued to a new date. (CCP § 2024.050(a); see Pelton Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588.) The motion should be accompanied by declarations covering the factors identified below, plus facts showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter informally. (CCP 2024.050(a).)

In exercising its discretion to grant or deny the motion, the court must take into consideration any relevant matter, including the following: the necessity and reasons for the additional discovery sought; the diligence or lack of diligence by the party seeking discovery, and the reasons why the discovery was not completed or the discovery motion heard earlier; whether permitting the discovery or granting the discovery motion will likely prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar or prejudice any party; and the length of time elapsed between any date previously set and the date presently set for trial. (CCP § 2024.050(b); see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1351–1352.)

The court finds Defendants have demonstrated diligence in their efforts to obtain the discovery. During Defendants’ attempt to schedule an informal discovery conference, the matter was transferred to the District, vacating the trial date of 7/14/14. Thus, Defendants did not have the opportunity to seek court intervention regarding the instant discovery dispute prior to the transfer.

Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, the court finds that Plaintiffs did not violate Pars. 10 or 11 of the General Order of the Court. (Ex Parte, Ex. Q.) Par. 10 is strictly voluntary, i.e. Counsels “are encouraged” to enter into a Stipulation. Par. 11 places a requirement on the moving party to seek a discovery conference, not Plaintiffs.

The sequence of events in this case was the result of unfortunate timing.

Therefore, the motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED only for the purpose that the corresponding motion to compel may be heard.

2. Motion to Compel

Defendants D. and S. Hechanova’s motion to compel compliance with business record subpoenas for psychological/psychiatric records is DENIED. Reduced costs in the sum of $800.00 are imposed against Defendants, payable within 30 days.

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, 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. (CCP 1987.1.)

The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a compelling state interest. Inquiry into one’s private affairs will not be constitutionally justified simply because the inadmissible and irrelevant matter sought might lead to other relevant evidence. THE BURDEN IS ON THE PARTY SEEKING THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION TO ESTABLISH DIRECT RELEVANCE. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a “careful balancing” of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. If an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the “least intrusive means” to satisfy the interest. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855.)

Plaintiff has withdrawn her claims for emotional distress. What is left is Defendants’ desire to obtain information about Plaintiff’s relationship with the decedent through her mental records. The court finds Defendants failed to establish direct relevance between the psychiatric records and whether the character and value of Plaintiff’s relationship with decedent can be found in such records. Further, Defendants have not established that they attempted to obtain the object of discovery through less intrusive means.

Motion is DENIED.

SANCTIONS: 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).)

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs for opposing the motion. The court finds Plaintiff’s request of $2,400.00 is excessive. Instead, reduced costs in the sum of $800.00 are imposed against Defendants, payable within 30 days.