2016-00197380-CU-NP

Jennifer Taggard vs. Sutter Medical Foundation

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

Filed By: Nott, Ross R.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Jennifer Taggard alleges various claims against Defendant Derek Taggard and Sutter Medical Foundation arising out of the purported unlawful accessing of and improper use of her medical records in conjunction with divorce proceedings between the Parties. Defendant Taggard worked at Sutter facilities at the relevant time periods in questions and Plaintiff alleges that the unlawful access to her medical records occurred as a result of his employment while they were legally separated and after their divorce. Plaintiff alleges that she has experienced significant loss of privacy and emotional distress as a result of Defendant Taggard accessing private information in

her medical records. Defendant Taggard contends that if he accessed plaintiff’s private medical information, he did so solely at Plaintiff’s request.

Defendants have issued the following subpoenas:

· Sacramento Knee and Sports Medicine – “All records, including electronically stored information, and radiological films, including but not limited to x-ray films MRIs, CT scans, radiology studies, imaging studies, relating to patient’ medical/dental histories; complaints; symptoms; examinations; findings; diagnosis prognosis; sign-in sheets; color photographs; videotapes; treatment; physica therapy; correspondence; flowsheet date by day; billing records and records o payments’ or other written or graphic material.”

· Sutter Medical Center, Attn: Medical Records – “All records, including electronically stored information, relating to patient’s medical/dental histories; complaints symptoms; examinations; findings; diagnosis; prognosis;; sign-in sheets; colo photographs; video tapes; treatment; physical therapy; correspondence; flowshee data by day; or other written or graphic material.” Limited to the date range o 1/1/11 to 12/31/13

· Sutter Medical Center, Attn: CIOX Health Representative – “All records, including all electronically stored information, relating to billing and records of payment. Limited to the date range of 1/11/11 to 12/31/13

· Sutter Medical Center, Attn: Radiology Department – “All films only, including electronically stored information of radiological files, x-ray films, MRIs, CT scans radiology studies and imaging studies.” Limited to the date range of 1/11/11 t 12/31/13.

Plaintiff objects to these subpoenas and moves to quash them on the grounds that the parameters of the subpoenas are overly broad, the information sought is irrelevant, and that allowing Defendant to obtain these records is a violation of Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

According to Defendant he further limited these subpoenas in conjunction with the meet and confer process by withdrawing his request for Plaintiff’s billing and radiology records. Defendant further offers to limit his subpoena to Sacramento Knee and Sports Medicine by requesting only (1) the dates Plaintiff underwent surgery at Sacramento Knee and Sports Medicine, and (2) any and all documents from November 2010 to December 13, 2013 that include the person(s) identified as Plaintiff’s emergency contact.

It is well established that medical records generally are protected by an individual’s constitutional “inalienable right of privacy.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.) Thus, the constitutional right to privacy necessarily extends to a party’s medical history. (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherandini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669.) That said, while litigants give up certain rights to privacy by filing lawsuits, the filing of those lawsuits does not automatically give the opposing party the unfettered right to pry into the plaintiff’s private affairs and personal matters under the guise of discovery; accordingly, broad-ranging inquiries into medical history may be precluded. (See Britt, at 844.)

The scope of waiver involved in bringing a lawsuit must be construed narrowly, “encompassing only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.) “Even when discovery of private information is found to be directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed. … The scope of any disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed in the least intrusive manner.” (Id.) “[T]he scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant has himself brought before the court.” (Britt, supra, at 863-864.)

Plaintiff avers, and Defendant does not dispute, that Sutter’s own internal audit process reveal that Defendant accessed and reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records on May 23, 2011; October 21, 2011; December 18, 2012; March 23, 2013; and July 4, 2013. The Sutter Defendants, who were previously parties in this action, produced via regular discovery all documents pertaining to its investigation of Defendant’s accessing Plaintiff’s records. Sutter also produced copies of the records that its investigation revealed that Defendant had accessed as well as the amount of time Defendant spent accessing each record. The audit report was provided to Defendant. Sutter further produced copies of the medical records that corresponded to the audit report references; portions that Defendant did not produce were redacted. Based on the production, it appeared that Defendant was reviewing Plaintiff’s prescribed medications, lab reports and test results and gynecological examination notes.

Again, Defendant admits that he has these records, but contends that somehow they “fail to put Defendant on notice of the claims against him.” The Court disagrees. Since Sutter’s audit report appears to have specifically identified the portions of Plaintiff’s records that Defendant accessed, the only truly relevant documents to this action are those very same documents. Defendant has not disputed that the portions of the records he already received were not redacted with regard to the information he actually accessed. Defendant has not presented any facts or argument to indicate that any of these categories of documents that are the subject of the subpoenas pertain to the very same records he is alleged to have accessed or that somehow some information was incorrectly redacted at the time that Sutter produced them. In sum, Defendant has failed to provide any sort of showing that he should be allowed to obtain additional medical records that, as far as the Parties have argued, are not the documents that Defendants improperly accessed. Defendant has not shown any grounds that warrant an invasion into the privacy of Plaintiff’s medical records that the subpoenas impose, particularly since Plaintiff makes clear that the subpoenas do not pertain to the dates of access.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the subpoenas identified above is GRANTED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required