Case Number: 18STCV00500 Hearing Date: June 18, 2019 Dept: 74

18STCV00500 TARA MOYE vs HYE QUALITY HOME HEALTH

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas of Plaintiff’s Records

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted and the subpoenas are quashed.

Plaintiff moves to quash subpoenas to her current and former employers and medical providers on the grounds of privacy.

The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 [26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834, 865 P.2d 633].) In Hill, we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id. at pp. 35–37.) The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. (Id. at pp. 37–40.)” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 552.) “Courts must place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies. What suffices to justify an invasion will vary according to the context. Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal. 5th at p. 557.)

Case law established some fundamental privacy interests. There is a privacy interest as to one’s personnel files. (BRV, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 756.) “[I]ndividuals have a legally recognized privacy interest in their personal financial information.” (International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 319, 330.) Patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to their medical information that is not directly relevant to a particular condition the patient has placed in issue. (California Consumer Health Care Council v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 21, 31.)

Defendant argues that the records contain information which is relevant, including plaintiff’s pay history which would be relevant to damages and alternative stressors in plaintiff’s life, which would be relevant to plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress. Defendant’s subpoenas seek all records from plaintiff’s employers and health care providers. The subpoenas are not limited to documents which would be relevant to issues in this action.

There are alternative, less intrusive means of obtaining the information, including written discovery to plaintiff and deposing plaintiff.

Although defendant complains that plaintiff’s refusal to comply with discovery obligations requires the subpoenas, only one discovery motion has been filed by defendant and it was withdrawn prior to the hearing. Verifying the truthfulness of plaintiff’s discovery responses is not a compelling reason to violate plaintiff’s privacy rights.

The subpoenas are overbroad, seeking records which appear to be within plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy and outside the issues raised in this action, and the relevant information is available through alternative, less intrusive means.

The motion is granted and the subpoenas are quashed.