2016-00202146-CU-PA

Christian Daniel Valdivia vs. Maria Briscoe

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Subpoena

Filed By: Anderson, Abigail T.

Defendant Briscoe’s motion to quash plaintiffs’ subpoena for defendant’s medical records from UC Davis Medical Center is GRANTED as follows.

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in 2014. Plaintiffs contend defendant, as she exited from Sunrise Mall, did not turn into the first lane of travel but instead drove straight across the lanes and directly into plaintiffs’ path of travel.

Plaintiffs have propounded discovery but defendant’s counsel has indicated defendant is mentally incapable of responding and may be suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Plaintiffs have issued a subpoena to UC Davis Medical Center seeking defendant’s records which pertain to “Dementia and or Alzheimer’s [sic].”

Defendant now moves to quash the subpoena on various grounds including that it invades her right to privacy, seeks information which is “wholly irrelevant,” and is overly broad, unreasonable, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that defendant placed her mental condition at issue and that the records are relevant to determining whether “this disease process had begun when the collision occurred and whether it played a role in this collision.”

The court will quash the subpoena on the grounds that it invades defendant’s right to privacy and that plaintiffs have failed to make the showing necessary to overcome this protection. It is well established that a person’s medical records fall within the privacy protections afforded by both federal and state constitutions as well as various federal and state statutes (see, e.g., Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code §56 et seq.)). Where privacy rights are implicated, the party seeking discovery must show more than mere legal relevance or likely to lead to admissible evidence. He/she must first establish that the information sought is not only “directly relevant” to the parties’ claims but also “essential” to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. (See, e.g., Alch v. Superior Court (Time Warner Entertainment Co.) (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1432-1433.) Additionally, in order to pass constitutional scrutiny, any discovery into matters deemed private must be “narrowly tailored” to obtain only the “essential” information and the party seeking the discovery must show there is no less intrusive means to obtain this information. (See, e.g., Tien v. Superior Court (Tenet Healthcare Corp.) (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 539-540; In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 244.) Even where all these prerequisites are met, there is still no categorical right to conduct discovery into the private matters as the trial court is required to “carefully balance” the rights and interests involved before permitting the proposed invasion of privacy. (See, e.g., Alch, at 1423-1425.)

Whether or not defendant was at the time of the 2014 accident suffering any symptoms of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease is simply not a fact of consequence in this action. Instead, to prevail in this case, plaintiffs merely need to prove that defendant operated her vehicle in a negligent fashion and that this was a proximate cause of their injuries. This burden of proof does not require them to explain why defendant did what she is alleged to have done and for all practical purposes, the reasons why defendant drove the way she did is largely irrelevant to the disposition of this suit.

Because the information sought by this subpoena does not come close to being “directly relevant” to plaintiffs’ negligence claims or otherwise “essential” to a fair resolution of the lawsuit as required under applicable precedent, the court’s inquiry ends without the need to consider any other of the pertinent factors.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to quash must be and hereby is granted.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)