Case Number: BC705688 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

On May 9, 2018, plaintiff Jennifer Lee Miller filed this action against defendants Joshalyn White, Johnesha White, and Regina Baker White (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries sustained in a July 8, 2016 motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff claims injuries to her back, head, spine, and both knees. On December 18, 2019, Defendants served a subpoena on Medi-Cal Community Health Plan – County of L.A. (“Deponent”) for Plaintiff’s medical and billing records. On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email requesting Defendants narrow the subpoena to records for five years before the accident and limited to the body parts at issue. Defendants did not agree.

A court “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 orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowered by the very nature of the action.” (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 43.) The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.) “[A]lthough in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient . . . privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849.) The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)

Defendants argue Plaintiff testified about a car accident 16 years before her deposition that resulted in back injuries and about a history of arthritis in her knees since 2010 or 2011. Therefore documents from 2003 to the present concerning her back and knees are potentially relevant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is GRANTED in part. The subpoena is limited to responsive records since 2003 concerning the body parts at issue, namely Plaintiff’s back, head, spine, and knees.

The Court does not award sanctions as the motion was made and opposed with substantial justification.

Moving party to give notice.