Case Number: BC643614 Hearing Date: December 17, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Quash 12 Subpoenas, or in the Alternative, Modify the 12 Subpoenas

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply was filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff Monique Sanges (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Danielle A. Gabison (“Gabison”) and Cheyanne Linares (“Linares”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging motor vehicle negligence for a collision that occurred on June 7, 2015.

On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash 12 subpoenas, or in the alternative, modify them because the requests for medical and billing records are overbroad as to scope and time and violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

Trial is set for July 13, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests that the Court quash Defendants’ subpoenas for medical, billing, and x-ray records from the following entities:

Northridge Hospital Medical Center – medical records;

Prohealth Advanced Imaging Medical Group – medical records;

Valley Care Center – medical and billing records;

Reseda Medical Clinic – medical, billing, and x-ray records;

Ben Drillings Chiropractic, Inc. – medical, billing, and x-ray records;

Northridge Hospital Medical Center – billing records;

Northridge Hospital Medical Center – x-ray records;

Prohealth Advanced Imaging Medical Group – billing records;

Prohealth Advanced Imaging Medical Group – x-ray records;

Valley Care Center – x-ray records;

Phillip H. Conwisar, M.D., Inc. – medical and billing records; and

Phillip H. Conwisar, M.D., Inc. – x-ray records.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendants and their attorneys of record in the amount of $4,122.00 incurred in bringing this motion.

Defendants oppose and also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorneys of record in the amount of $1,990.00 incurred in opposing this motion.

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

Service Issues

Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because service is improper. Specifically, Defendants argue that they never received a copy of the motion in the mail. (Clement Decl. ¶ 8.)

However, Plaintiff’s filed motion includes a proof of service showing that the motion was served via first class mail on November 8, 2019. Based on the filed proof of service, the Court finds that there was proper service of the motion. The fact that Defendants did not receive the motion does not conclusively prove that Plaintiff did not properly serve the motion. Further, Defendants filed a full opposition to the motion, which reflects that it had sufficient time to present its position to the Court.

Meet and Confer

Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because of a failure to engage in good faith meet and confer efforts. But Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, pursuant to which the instant motion is made, does not require that a party meet and confer prior to moving to quash or modify a subpoena. Defendants’ reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410 is inapplicable to this specific situation.

Merits

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are overbroad as to scope and violate her right to privacy.

Defendants argue that this motion is moot because Defendants have agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoenas to the musculoskeletal system, specifically the cervical and lumbar spine, and time period to 10 years before the subject accident.

“[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).) The mere allegation of pain and suffering does not render all records pertaining to the plaintiff’s mental condition as discoverable, as such documents need to still be directly relevant to the mental condition at issue. (See e.g. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1015-1020.)

Here, the subpoenas as issued requested any and all documents and records. The Court finds that the subpoenas as issued were overbroad without justification. In response to Plaintiff’s objections, however, Defendants have agreed to narrow the scope and time period of the subpoenas because of the privacy issues.

Therefore, this issue is moot as Defendants have agreed to withdraw their subpoenas.

Monetary Sanctions

Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as moot because Defendants have agreed to modify the subpoenas, the Court declines to award monetary sanctions. It appears to the Court that this matter should have been resolved by the parties if they had spent sufficient time communicating with one another before filing the motion.

Even if the Court were to award monetary sanctions, the Court finds both parties’ requests to be unreasonable considering the simplicity of the motion and opposition. Counsel for both parties state that they worked unreasonable hours on these motions, and Plaintiff’s counsel does not justify her $350 hourly rate.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as moot.

The Court DENIES both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.