Case Number: SC120268    Hearing Date: July 24, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

PETER NGUYEN,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

ROBERT DE LONG, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: SC120268

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART THE MOTION TO QUASH

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #33
July 24, 2014

Defendant, Robert De Long’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED and the deposition subpoena for medical records is quashed. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Peter Nguyen filed this action against Defendants, Robert De Long and Alex Wolf for damages arising out of an auto accident. Defendant Robert De Long (“Defendant”) was the driver of the vehicle owned by Defendant Alex Wolf. On 6/11/14, Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena for the medical records of Defendant to UCLA Medical Center. On 6/19/14, Defendant objected to the deposition subpoena.

2. Motion to Quash
Defendant, Robert De Long moves to quash the deposition subpoena, contending it violates his privileges and his right to privacy. There is also insufficient showing that there are less intrusive means in obtaining the information. Defendant requests $1,660 in sanctions against Plaintiff and Counsel.
Plaintiff’s opposition and sur-opposition argue that Defendant’s sobriety is relevant to causation. Both parties herein argue that they did not fail to stop at their respective signals. Defendant’s sobriety is at issue in that Defendant’s deposition testimony claims that he was sober at the time of the accident. Plaintiff requests that sanctions be denied in that there is no abuse of discovery herein. Further, Defendant’s claim that they will use any evidence to dispute any allegation that Defendant was intoxicated.
Defendant’s Reply argues that Plaintiff fails to lay a foundation to show the medical records are relevant. Further, Plaintiff failed to show that Defendant’s medical records are not private and privileged.

a. Meet and Confer
Defendant mailed a letter to Plaintiffs’ Counsel objecting to the deposition subpoena for medical records on 6/19/14. In response thereto, Plaintiff asserted the validity for the deposition subpoena and their reasoning for the subpoena. On 6/25/14, Defendant asserted that the subpoena was merely a fishing expedition and re-asserted his objections. On 6/26/14, Defendant filed this motion to quash. Based upon the exchange of correspondence between Counsels, there is sufficient showing that the parties met and conferred in good faith.

b. Procedural Defects in Papers
Defendant was required to file a separate statement with the moving papers. See CRC 3.1345(a)(5). The Court has considered the motion on its merits despite this defect, but orders the parties to comply with all Rules of Court in the future in connection with this action.
c. Law Regarding Medical Records in a Personal Injury Case
For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301. These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.
“‘The patient … is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific mental or emotional injury; the scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.’” Britt v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 (quoting In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 432, 435). 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. Information about medical conditions entirely different from the injury sued upon are beyond the scope of discovery (not “relevant to the subject matter”). However, medical records pertaining to an unrelated condition are discoverable on a showing of “good cause” if the condition is relevant to the issue of proximate causation. Ev.C. § 999; Slagle v. Super.Ct. (Maryon) (1989) 211 Cal App 3d 1309, 1314–1315. A trial court must conduct a balancing inquiry as to private records, including based upon law allowing for an in camera inspection to obtain the information needed to determine whether all requested records are relevant, instead of just based upon speculation. Lantz v. Sup. Ct., (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1857 (citing Palay v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 919, 935).

d. Analysis
The deposition testimonies provided by both parties herein show that Defendant was driving co-Defendant Wolf, who was too intoxicated to drive her own vehicle. Defendants were leaving a restaurant/bar (“Cabo Cantina”) that was celebrating Cinco De Mayo. Defendant arrived at the restaurant/bar around 7:00 PM or 8:00 PM. Defendant left the restaurant/bar approximately two to three hours later without eating or drinking anything. Both parties dispute liability and each claim that the other ran their respective red light signal. Defendant claims to have been sober at the time of the accident. As such, the only evidence presented herein shows that Defendant was sober. However, Plaintiff argues that the medical records from the emergency room at UCLA Medical Center, where Defendant was treated, may or may not provide evidence to either refute or corroborate this contention. Plaintiff’s arguments fall on the fact that Defendant was coming from a bar with an intoxicated passenger, ran a red light signal and was traveling at a high rate of speed when he entered the intersection. As such, Plaintiff’s arguments herein are based upon speculation that he was not sober/intoxicated. There are no facts showing that Defendant was in fact intoxicated. Without other evidence to corroborate Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant was in fact intoxicated when the accident occurred, there is insufficient good cause herein. Plaintiff must first present some facts to show that the “condition” herein existed in order to seek the medical records. Plaintiff has not adequately shown good cause that the subject records are necessary in order for him to prosecute his claims herein.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied in that there are other circumstances present herein making the imposition of sanctions unjust.
The motion to quash is therefore granted. However, the request for sanctions is denied.

Dated this 24th day of July, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court