Case Number: BC701110 Hearing Date: December 17, 2019 Dept: 2

Cameron v. Holloway

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena for Dr. Niveen Abdelmessih to Produce Plaintiff’s Health Records, or alternatively, for a Protective Order; Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

1) The court may quash a subpoena to protect the Plaintiff from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1.

On 10/24/19, Defendant served a Notice of Deposition and issued a subpoena to Niveen Abdelmessi, M.D., requiring his appearance at a deposition on 11/19/19 and to produce “any and all records” pertaining to Plaintiff, Amanda Dolores Cameron, without limitation in scope or time.

The subpoena appears moot since Defendant advised that the deposition would not proceed and the subpoena as sent was withdrawn. Defendant agreed to limit the subpoena to the body parts Plaintiff specifically injured in the accident that is the subject of this action as Plaintiff requested. Motion, Ex. 2.

Accordingly, the motion is rendered moot. There is no subpoena with request for documents presently at issue. Defendant agreed to send another amended subpoena. Motion, Ex. 2, email dated 11/11/19 from defense counsel, Michael J. Lowell.

2) Plaintiff is generally correct that the right to privacy is protected by the California Constitution. Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839.

Where privacy rights are implicated, Defendant is required to show that the records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.

There is an implicit waiver of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights encompassing discovery directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014; Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.

The scope of the permitted inquiry depends on the nature of the injuries which the Plaintiff has brought to the court. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 864.

As discussed above, Defendant agreed to reissue the subpoena with limiting language. There no basis for quashing a withdrawn subpoena or for a protective order to limit language that Defendant already agreed to limit.

3) The location of the deposition of the deponent, whether or not a party, is required to be within 75 miles of the deponent’s residence, or within the county where the action is pending and within 150 miles of the deponent’s residence, at the option of the party giving notice of the deposition. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2025.250.

There is no evidence of Dr. Abdelmessih’s residence or that the location of the deposition falls outside the parameters of § 2025.250.

4) The court awards Defendant fees and costs incurred in making the motion totaling $600 against Plaintiff, Amanda Cameron, and her counsel, Kazanjian Law, as Plaintiff has not shown substantial justification for making the motion. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1987.2.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.