Case Number: BC712731 Hearing Date: May 01, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MARCELA CARRILLO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RYAN SHANNON, ET AL.

Defendants.

CASE NO: BC712731

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL, BILLING, AND RADIOLOGY RECORDS, IN PART; MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT RECORDS IS MOOT

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

May 1, 2019

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoenas to (1) Kaiser Permanente Central Release of Information Unit, (2) Kaiser Permanente Central Support Services Revenue Cycle, and (3) S.C.P.M.G. – Baldwin Park Radiology Dept. for Plaintiff’s medical, billing, and radiology records is GRANTED, in part. The Court orders the subpoenas to be limited to medical, billing, and radiology records regarding the specific body parts listed in Plaintiff’s sworn and verified responses to Form Interrogatories 6.2.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Occidental College Child Development Center for Plaintiff’s employment records is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,810.00.

I. Background

On July 3, 2018, Plaintiff Marcela Carrillo initiated this lawsuit against Defendants Ryan Shannon and So Cal Bobcat and Concrete Cutting, Inc. The lawsuit arises out of an automobile collision involving the parties on September 9, 2016, from which Plaintiff alleges to have suffered injuries.

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present motion to quash Defendant’s subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical, billing, radiology, and employment records on grounds that they impermissibly violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy. The filing of this motion follows Defendant serving business record subpoenas to the following facilities on January 30, 2019: Kaiser Permanente Central Release of Information Unit, Kaiser Permanente Central Support Services Revenue Cycle, S.C.P.M.G. – Baldwin Park Radiology Dept., Occidental College Child Development Center.

II. Legal Standard

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 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.” (CCP § 1987.1.) The court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas. (See, e.g., Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.) The parties’ discussion of their meet and confer efforts, or lack thereof, is irrelevant as there is no meet and confer requirement in bringing a motion to quash. (See CCP § 1987.1.)

III. Analysis

Subpoenas for Medical, Billing, and Radiology Records

Plaintiff moves to quash business record subpoenas issued to the following facilities on January 30, 2019: Kaiser Permanente Central Release of Information Unit; Kaiser Permanente Central Support Services Revenue Cycle; and S.C.P.M.G. – Baldwin Park/Radiology Dept. (Cunningham Decl., Exhs. 3-5.) The subpoena to Kaiser Permanente Central Release of Information Unit seeks “[a]ny and all medical documents for the past 10 years, paper and digital records pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of Marcela Carrillo. . . .” (Cunningham Decl., Exh. 3.) The subpoena to Kaiser Permanente Central Support Services Revenue Cycle seeks “[a]ny and all paper and digital records of payment and / or discount regarding any medical billing as well as the bills themselves, billing information . . . pertaining to Marcela Carrillo,” as well as “[a]ll records, including but not limited to, any and all medical records, diagnostics, laboratory studies, films and billings for the past ten (10) years.” (Cunningham Decl., Exh. 4.) The subpoena to S.C.P.M.G. – Baldwin Park/Radiology Dept. seeks “[a]ny and all x-ray films for the past 10 years, to include MRI films, CAT scans, myelograms, radiological images, ultrasounds and any other films specific to Marcela Carrillo,” as well as “[a]ll records, including but not limited to, any and all medical records, diagnostics, laboratory studies, films and billing for the past ten (10) years.” (Cunningham Decl., Exh. 5.) Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas should be quashed because they violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy.

It is well established that medical records are afforded constitutional protection under a person’s right to privacy. Nevertheless, when a plaintiff puts his or 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.) There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are overly broad because they seek the entirety of Plaintiff’s medical, billing, and radiology records history without limitation as to scope. At the same time, however, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant may have a right to some of the records they wish produced.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff has put her medical conditions into dispute, such that discovery into her medical history as to those injuries at issue in this case is appropriate. Here, Plaintiff provided sworn and verified discovery responses in which she claims injuries to the following areas of her body as a result of this incident: neck, left shoulder, left arm, elbow, wrist, left hand, back, thigh, left knee, left leg, left foot. (Cunningham Decl., Exh. 2.) Plaintiff also claims nausea, anxiety, loss of sleep, and emotional injuries. (Cunningham Decl., Exh. 2.) The general public interest in the ascertainment of truth in legal proceedings and in obtaining just results in litigation outweighs the privacy interests of Plaintiff who has put her alleged injuries, health, and medical treatment at issue in this litigation.

Defendant argues that the subpoena as phrased is proper because Plaintiff claims almost the entirety of her person for the alleged injuries sustained in this incident. Not only is Defendant’s argument wholly without merit on its face, the very discovery responses to which Defendant refers contradicts this assertion. (See Cunningham Decl., Exh. 2.)

In exercising its discretion to allow or discovery, Courts are to keep in mind that the Legislature has suggested that, where possible, Courts should impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery. (See Williams 3 Cal.5th at 559, quoting Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383.) Accordingly, balancing the competing considerations, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion, in part. The subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical, billing, and radiology records shall be limited to those records pertaining to the specific body parts listed in Plaintiff’s sworn and verified responses to Form Interrogatories 6.2.

Subpoena for Employment Records

Plaintiff also moves to quash the subpoena to Occidental Child Development Center, which sought Plaintiff’s employment and/or personnel file. Defendant, however, states that the subpoena has since been withdrawn prior to the date of production. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena for employment records served on Occidental Child Development Center is MOOT.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant So Cal Bobcat and Concrete Cutting, Inc. and/or Brandon Corday, and/or Law Offices of Kirk & Myers in the amount of $3,560.00. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987.2 provides that 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.”

The Court finds that sanctions are justified in this case, as the subpoenas were oppressive and the opposition was without merit. The Court orders Defendant So Cal Bobcat and Concrete Cutting, Inc., and its counsel of record, Brandon Corday, Esq. and Law Offices of Kirk & Myers to pay sanctions, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,810.00 based on seven hours of attorney time at Counsel’s rate of $250.00 per hour plus the filing fee of $60.00.

Moving party to give notice.