Case Number: 18STCV00139 Hearing Date: September 10, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Quash Subpoenas (x4)

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff Lander Urrengoetxea (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Bonnie McNeil and Timothy McNeil (“Defendants”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for a bicycle-automobile collision that occurred on June 7, 2017.

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash four deposition subpoenas pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for April 8, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court to quash four deposition subpoenas that Defendant Bonnie McNeil issued to Plaintiff’s medical providers for being overbroad, seeking irrelevant information, and invading Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to issue $3,811.65 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Timothy McNeil and his counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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 order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

In making an order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

“[P]laintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing [a] lawsuit, . . . they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 (citation and footnote omitted).) However, “. . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff served verified responses to Defendant Bonnie McNeil’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) stating Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of Defendants’ negligence to Plaintiff’s head, chest, right shoulder, and right arm. (Galadzhyan Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) On July 1, 2019, Defendant Bonnie McNeil served deposition subpoenas to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center – Billing, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center – Radiology, and Cedars-Sinai Physicians Billing Service. (Galadzhyan Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 3-6.) These deposition subpoenas seek either all medical, billing, and radiology reports pertaining to Plaintiff from July of 2009 to the present day. (Ibid.)

On July 29, 2019, Defendant Bonnie McNeil agreed to Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed limitation to the subject deposition subpoenas six days after Plaintiff’s counsel sent the proposed limitation. (Arquell Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. F.) Defendants then withdrew the subject subpoenas. (Arquell Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to quash is moot. There are no subpoenas to quash as Defendants withdrew the subpoenas that Plaintiff now asks the Court to quash. The opposing papers were served by regular U.S. Mail nine court days before the hearing, and thus not reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to Plaintiff no later than the close of the next business day. However, this is immaterial when considering a ruling on the merits of the motion would result in a waste of judicial resources due to the contested subpoenas being withdrawn.

Plaintiff argues that the issue of sanctions has not been mooted. The Court agrees. Defendants’ subpoenas were overbroad in that they sought medical information regarding aspects of Plaintiff’s medical treatment that were not placed at issue in this lawsuit. Nor is there any basis for seeking documents from more than ten years ago. thus, the Court may consider the sanctions request despite Defendants’ subsequent withdrawal of the offending subpoenas.

That being said, the Court finds an imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Defendant Bonnie McNeil withdrew the subpoenas within a week after Plaintiff served objections to these subpoenas. Because of Plaintiff’s prompt action in filing these motions to quash, the subpoenas were withdrawn after the motions were filed, but Defendant Bonnie McNeil only had three days to withdraw the subpoenas between Plaintiff service of objections and her filing of these motions. As such, the Court finds Defendant Bonnie McNeil acted diligently in remedying her abuse of the discovery process and, thus, an imposition of sanctions against her would be unjust.

It is also worth noting that an imposition of sanctions against Defendant Timothy McNeil would be improper because he did not issue the subject subpoenas. But even if he had, the same rationale for denying sanctions to Defendant Bonnie McNeil would also apply to Defendant Timothy McNeil.

The motion is DENIED.