16-CIV-02929 DARLA RICHARDSON VS. THE SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, ET AL.

DARLA RICHARDSON THE SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
ASHWIN LADVA PAUL E. GASPARI

DEFENDANT THE SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, PARTICULAR COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, INC.’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA TO DR. CHARLES MONTGOMERY, M.D. OVER WRITTEN OBJECTION; AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Defendant Society of St. Vincent De Paul, Particular Council of San Mateo County, Inc. (“Defendant”) to Enforce Subpoena to Dr. Charles Montgomery (“Dr. Montgomery”) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Darla Richardson (“Plaintiff”) objected to the subpoena based on overbreadth, but failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this objection. Although the subpoena is not limited in time frame or as to injuries related to the subject accident, it appears undisputed that Plaintiff treated with Dr. Montgomery for injuries related to the subject accident. (See Correira Decl., Exh. B.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she treated with Dr. Montgomery prior to the accident or for injuries unrelated to the accident. Thus, there appears to be no reason to limit the subpoena. Plaintiff also objected to the subpoena based on privacy rights, but the court finds that Plaintiff’s privacy rights are outweighed by Defendant’s need for these records. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she had changes in the relationship with her husband after the accident. (See Correira Decl., Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s husband also claimed that their relationship has changed because of the accident, and that Plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Montgomery as a result of the accident. (See Correira Decl., Exh. B.) Plaintiff admits she is seeking emotional distress damages as a result of the accident. Thus, Defendant is entitled to these records since Plaintiff has put her emotional state at issue.

Dr. Montgomery is to produce all records sought in the subpoena within 10 days of the date of notice of entry of order to First Records Retrieval, located at 1511 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90026.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED as the court finds there was substantial justification in attempting to protect the privacy of medical records.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, moving party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312. The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.