Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records defendant is represented by attorney Steve Pasarow of Knapp Petersen & Clarke who is being sanctioned by the judge.

Case Number: BC592282 Hearing Date: May 07, 2018 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Employment and Medical Records; Request for Sanctions, filed on 3/13/18 is GRANTED. Defendants have not met their burden of showing direct relevance for the overbroad request of records sought in the subpoenas issued to Chun Jackson, N.G. and Phase II Transportation. Motion, Ex. 2.

The court can quash the subpoenas or issue a protective order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1.

The motion is not rendered moot by Defendants’ proposed limitations to the subpoenas at issue. Plaintiff has also requested cost and fees for having to make the motion.

The court can quash the subpoenas or issue a protective order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer by letter dated 3/2/18, without response. Motion, Ex. 3. Declaration of Lakshmi Odedra, ¶ 14.

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, Defendants have to show that the records sought are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit and a compelling need for the discovery. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014; Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.

Plaintiff disclosed physical injury to his right ankle and lumbosacral spine. Motion, Ex. 1, 8:8-15. The subpoena issued to Chun Jackson N.G. is not limited to the injuries Plaintiff suffered in this incident. Defendants have not shown substantial justification for records dating back 15 years. Plaintiff is entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment that he may have undergone in the past. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.

The scope of permitted inquiry “depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court … .” Britt at 864.

Nor have Defendants shown why documents dating back 15 years is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim.

Defendants have not shown direct relevance for the broad scope of employment records, including tax information, and insurance records unrelated to any physical injury sustained. While Defendants are entitled to records directly relevant to wage loss, the subpoena issued to Phase II Transportation, is unlimited. Nor have Defendants shown how Plaintiff’s Worker’s Compensation records unrelated to any injury are directly relevant.

Tax returns and tax return entries are privileged from disclosure (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 1, 7.

The privilege extends to W-2 forms and other attachments to the tax return. Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 141.

Plaintiff’s employment records are also privileged from disclosure. In Board of Trustees v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, the real party in interest, Dr. Dong, sought to compel the University to produce the personnel, tenure, and promotion files relating to a co-faculty member, Dr. Lucas. The court applied a balance of factors to determine whether such records should be disclosed in the interest of Dr. Lucas’ privacy.

Board of Trustees at 526.

The court has discretion to award attorney’s fees and costs under CCP § 1987.2.

Defendants have not shown substantial justification for the broad scope of records subject to the subpoenas. Accordingly, the court imposes sanctions of $1,460 against Defendants and counsel.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.