Case Number: BC625089 Hearing Date: April 30, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Ameek Floyd,

Plaintiff,

v.

Jose Salciso, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC625089

Hearing Date: April 30, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for court order to compel plaintiff to produce mental health records; Motion for Monetary Sanctions

Background

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision between plaintiff Ameek Floyd (“Plaintiff”) and defendants Jose Salcido, Manuel Huerta Trucking, Inc., and Erika Bowman. Defendants Jose Salcido and Manuel Huerta Trucking, Inc. (the moving “Defendants”) seek an order compelling Plaintiff to sign the authorizations for release of her mental health records.

Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants have replied.

Discussion

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Sign Authorization Releasing Medical Records

Defendants argue that the Court has authority to grant an order compelling Plaintiff to sign a medical authorization form. Defendants cite Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913 (“Miranda”) to support this contention. However, the Court notes that Miranda does not allow a court to compel a plaintiff to sign a medical authorization form, but rather expresses skepticism of obtaining medical records in this way.

In Miranda, the plaintiff made an underinsured motorist’s claim. The defendant commenced discovery, which revealed that the plaintiff had been treated for post-concussion symptoms with Kaiser in 2000. The defendant followed up with a subpoena to Kaiser, but Kaiser indicated it would release the records only with a signed authorization from the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to sign an authorization. The defendant ultimately filed an action to commence discovery with the Superior Court. The defendant concurrently filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of the records from Kaiser. The plaintiff did not file any written opposition, but counsel specially appeared on the plaintiff’s behalf and objected on the basis that the plaintiff had not been personally served with the motion. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff continued to refuse to sign the authorization, and the trial court ultimately granted a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s non-compliance with the order granting the motion to compel. The plaintiff appealed, but the sole issue on the appeal was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss the case; the Court of Appeals did not rule on the propriety of the issuance of the order compelling the plaintiff to sign the authorizations.

Notably, to the extent the Court of Appeals did rule on the issue in Miranda, it was highly skeptical of this method of discovery. In a footnote, it indicated, “The record does not reflect the reason the medical facilities requested plaintiff’s authorization. Perhaps defendant did not comply with the procedures to obtain “personal records” of a “consumer” as required by section 1985.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which case the medical facilities had a sufficient basis to refuse compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (k).) If section 1985.3 had been complied with, the record does not indicate why defendant did not simply move to compel compliance with the subpoena pursuant to section 1987.1, instead of pursuing an unwilling plaintiff for a signed authorization. These matters remain mysteries because of the scant record presented to the trial court.”

As suggested by the Court of Appeal in Miranda and the Plaintiff in the opposition, Defendant’s remedy is to pursue this discovery through an established and proper channel, such as by way of a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena pursuant to section 1987.1. As such, the motion to compel Plaintiff to sign the authorization forms is denied.

Sanctions

Both Defendant and Plaintiff request sanctions for the filing of this motion. The Court denies these requests. The parties had substantial justification in bringing and opposing this motion. There is no clear statement of the law by the courts on the issue of compelling a plaintiff to sign a medical authorization form. Therefore, both parties are justified in presenting their arguments.

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is denied. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are also denied.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future court dates will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: April 30, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court