Case Number: NC057775    Hearing Date: October 20, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

RANALDO LOYA,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Case No.: NC057775

Hearing Date: October 20, 2014

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
DEFENDANT LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. THREE; REQUEST FOR $1,350 MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY

Defendant Long Beach Unified School District’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, Set No. Three; Request for $1,350 Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and his Attorneys Jointly and Severally is GRANTED as to Request No. 3, DENIED as to Request No. 2, and GRANTED in part, DENIED in part as to Request Nos. 1 and 4. Plaintiff is to provide supplemental responses consistent with this order within 10 days of service of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiff Ranaldo Loya filed the instant action against Defendants Rodney Dewayne Adams, Long Beach Unified School District (“LBUSD”) and City of Long Beach alleging that he was injured in a bus versus bicyclist accident. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on October 12, 2011, the bike he was riding was clipped by a bus driven by Defendant Adams, causing Plaintiff to veer into a depression in the roadway and fall down. Plaintiff alleges a claim for negligence against Defendant LBUSD and a claim for dangerous condition on public property against the City of Long Beach. Defendant LBUSD cross-complained against City of Long Beach for indemnity. The instant Motion to Compel Further Responses was filed on June 17, 2014. On September 8, 2014, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference with the Court. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. LBUSD filed its reply on October 10, 2014.

Although Plaintiff does not raise the issue, Defendant has not demonstrated that notice of the instant motion was given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, as required by CCP Section 2031.310(c). Defendant should bring proof of the extension of this deadline to the hearing to support the granting of relief.

Discussion

The instant motion concerns LBUSD’s Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, Set No. Three, (“RFPs”) numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. (Motion, Kors Decl. (“Kors Decl.”) ¶4.) The requests are as follows:

1. Any and all medical records concerning your treatment for AIDS/HIV post the subject accident;
2. Any and all billing statements and writings reflecting charges incurred by you or on your behalf for health care in connection with your treatment for AIDS/HIV post the subject accident;
3. Any and all medications taken by plaintiff Ranaldo Loya for treatment of AIDS/HIV post the subject accident; and
4. Any and all reports and medical records of any kind prepared by health care providers with respect to your care and treatment for AIDS/HIV post the subject accident.

As the Court held in Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864:

[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 this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.

In seeking Plaintiff’s privileged medical records, Defendant LBUSD cannot simply seek evidence that may be relevant to this action or may lead to admissible evidence. Rather, LBUSD must show that the records are directly relevant to the case. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 524-25.) Once the Court determines that the records are directly relevant to the action, it must carefully balance the need for discovery against the right of privacy. (Id. at 525.) Finally, the party seeking the discovery must show that the information cannot be obtained through depositions or non-confidential sources, and if discovery is allowed, it must be minimally intrusive. (Harding Lawson Assocs. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)

The above requests are so broadly worded so to request all of Plaintiff’s medical and billing records relating to AIDS/HIV “post the subject accident.” Defendant LBUSD fails to provide a sufficient showing that these records are directly relevant to the subject matter of this action, particularly in light of the sensitive nature of medical records relating to a person’s AIDS/HIV condition. Plaintiff has alleged that he injured his shoulder as a result of the accident. In Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Opposition, counsel states that Plaintiff “has suffered a fractured shoulder, lost teeth, and various injuries to his c-spine and lumbar spine.” Therefore, any discovery of private records must relate to these specific injuries.

The declaration of Geoffrey Miller, M.D., on which LBUSD relies, states that he cannot fully evaluate Plaintiff’s current medical condition without having all of the medical information regarding his current health. (Motion, Miller Decl. (“Miller Decl.”) ¶8) Dr. Miller also states that Plaintiff’s complaints regarding pain and suffering “may well be related to his being HIV positive.” (Miller Decl. ¶8.) Finally, Dr. Miller states that Plaintiff has been on disability from work since 1994. (Miller Decl. ¶2.) However, the nature of Plaintiff’s disability leave from work is not indicated. This evidence is not sufficient to tie the alleged injuries from the accident to his HIV/AIDS condition, as it fails to draw any specific, non-hypothetical link between Plaintiff’s injury and disease, so a broad disclosure of all medical records is not supported by this declaration. However, to the extent the HIV/AIDS medical records requested relate to specific parts of Plaintiff’s body as to which he claims injury from the accident, the medical records would be relevant.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is granted in part with respect to requests 1 and 4 as follows:
Plaintiff is to provide to Defendant any medical records concerning his treatment for AIDS/HIV post the subject accident to the extent such records relate to the condition or treatment of Plaintiff’s shoulder, mouth, c-spine and lumbar spine. Other portions of the medical records produced may be redacted to the extent they contain private information. For example, any information in the medical records regarding impacts to or the condition of other parts of Plaintiff’s body, such as impacts to his legs, arms, head (other than the mouth), and the like, are protected and are not to be produced or are to be redacted.

With respect to the billing records (RFP No. 2), LBUSD makes the argument that its attorney cannot distinguish between the treatment provided to Plaintiff for his shoulder injury and for HIV/AIDS, and it must be provided the billing records to ensure that none of the bills reflect charges for treatments not related to the accident itself. This argument is specious. There is nothing to support LBUSD’s contention that Plaintiff treated at the same facilities for his shoulder injury and his HIV/AIDS condition other than “information and belief.” Nor can Defendant LBUSD simply obtain all of Plaintiff’s HIV/AIDS medical billing records; this would permit any defendant in a personal injury action to obtain all of a plaintiff’s medical billing records to ensure none of the bills are overlapping. This request is denied.

Request No. 3. With respect to medications Plaintiff was taking for HIV/AIDS, Defendant LBUSD’s motion again relies on Dr. Miller’s declaration as necessary “to make a full and proper evaluation of plaintiff’s mental and physical condition as it relates to the subject accident ….” (Miller Decl.¶8.) Defendant LBUSD also presents evidence that a percipient witness to the accident testified Plaintiff was “wobbly” on his bike. (Reply, Kohrs Decl. (“Kohrs Decl.”) ¶2.) Documents regarding medication Plaintiff was taking at the time of the accident are relevant to his ability to ride his bike safely, especially in light of this testimony. However, the request for production is limited to medication Plaintiff took for HIV/AIDS “post the subject accident,” so it appears these documents are not requested (except to the extent possibly that “post the accident” includes the day of the accident).

However, the Court finds that given the possibility of side effects of medication taken by Plaintiff for HIV/AIDS (or, for that matter, for any condition), this could affect the current symptoms experienced by Plaintiff including, as Dr. Miller states, his present complaints and current pain and suffering. (Miller Decl. ¶8.) Given the difficulty in limiting this request to medication that has specific side effects and the more limited privacy interests at issue in this request (as compared to records regarding Plaintiff’s current condition), the Court grants the motion to compel as to RFP No. 3.

Sanctions

CCP Section 2031.310(h) mandates that a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses be sanctioned unless they acted with substantial justification or the imposition of sanctions would be otherwise unjust. Given that the Court finds that the discovery request was overly broad and is only ordering supplemental responses as to some of the requests, thus granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part, the request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant LBUSD is ordered to give notice.

DATED: October 20, 2014
_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge of the Superior Court