Case Number: 19STCV26290 Hearing Date: February 19, 2020 Dept: 28

Motion to Quash Subpoenas (x11)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff Nick Dang (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Feng Ren and Panrosa Enterprises, Inc. The complaint alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on December 5, 2017.

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash eleven deposition subpoenas pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for January 25, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court to quash eleven deposition subpoenas Defendant Panrosa Enterprises, Inc. issued in seeking Plaintiff’s medical, billing, and employment records.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to issue $3,186.65 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Panrosa Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel for bringing 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.)

“[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.)

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

On December 23, 2019, Defendant Panrosa Enterprises, Inc. issued subpoenas to the following entities: (1) Brazil Chiropractic Health Center, (2) Coastal Plastic Surgeons, (3) United Medical Imaging of Huntington Beach, (4) United Medical Imaging/Billing, (5) Newport Care Medical Group/Medical, (6) Newport Care Medical Group/Billing, (7) Newport Care Medical Group, Radiology, (8) IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company c/o Chief Financial Officer, (9) Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company, (10) Classic Industries, and (11) Orange County Urgent Care. (Franco Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. 4.)

The subpoenas to Brazil Chiropractic Health Center, Coastal Plastic Surgeons, United Medical Imaging/Billing, Newport Care Medical Group/Medical, Newport Care Medical Group/Billing, and Orange County Urgent Care request all documents and x-ray films for the past 10 years regarding the care, treatment, and examination of Plaintiff. (Ibid.) The subpoena issued to United Medical Imaging of Huntington Beach seeks all documents and x-ray films for the past 10 years regarding the care, treatment, and examination of Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

The subpoena issued to Newport Care Medical Group, Radiology seeks all x-ray films for the past 10 years regarding Plaintiff. (Ibid.) The subpoenas issued to IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company c/o Chief Financial Officer and Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company seek all documents regarding Plaintiff’s insurance and claim file. (Ibid.) The subpoena issued to Classic Industries seeks all employment records regarding Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues the subpoenas seeking documents not related to Plaintiff’s neck, upper back, left shoulder, left arm, mid back, head, and lower back are overbroad because they relate to irrelevant body parts. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff over-simplifies his description of his injuries alleged in this action. His response to written discovery goes on for about a page and a half of injuries, including nervousness, anxiety, and loss of sleep. As such

The Court finds the subpoenas are not overbroad as they relate to body parts other than Plaintiff’s neck, upper back, left shoulder, left arm, mid back, head, and lower back. The subpoenas cannot be practically limited to documents relating to specific injuries. Medical facilities generally do not have doctors and lawyers reviewing documents before serving them to a subpoenaing party. As such, it would be prudent for Plaintiff and Defendant Panrosa Enterprises, Inc. to meet and confer after the production to destroy irrelevant documents.

Plaintiff also contends the subpoena issued to Classic Industries is irrelevant because Plaintiff is not making a loss of earnings or earning capacity claim. The Court agrees. This subpoena is properly quashed.

The Court finds sanctions are not proper here. The vast majority of the subpoenas Plaintiff seeks to quash are proper.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Court orders the subpoena Defendant Panrosa Enterprises, Inc. issued to Classic Industries is QUASHED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.