Case Number: BC708590 Hearing Date: January 02, 2019 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order re Deposition Subpoenas of Plaintiff’s Medical Records, filed on 10/29/18, is GRANTED. The Court issues a protective order to preclude the production of documents sought by Defendants’ six subpoenas. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 1987.1.

On 10/5/18, Defendants issued six subpoenas for the production of Plaintiff’s medical records on Roads Community Care Clinic, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Director, Memorial Counseling Associates, August F. Hawkins Mental Health Center, Executive Mental Health, and Department of Health Care Services. Motion, Exhibits 1-6. The subpoenas are overbroad and violate Plaintiff’s right of privacy as to those injuries.

The right to privacy is protected by the California Constitution. Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839.

Where privacy rights are implicated, Defendants have to show that the records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Defendants must show a compelling need for the discovery. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014; Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665. Additionally, the scope of the permitted inquiry depends on the nature of the injuries which the Plaintiff has brought to the court. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 864.

Plaintiff is not making a claim for psychiatric injury. Motion, Ex. 7. The subpoenas are not limited to any particular injury. Motion, Exhibits 1-6.

The subpoenas are both overbroad in scope and subject matter. Defendants are not entitled to Plaintiff’s entire medical history. Plaintiff is entitled to maintain privacy over medical history that has not been tendered in the lawsuit. Plaintiff’s right of privacy is protected as to physical and mental conditions unrelated to the claim or injury sued upon. Britt v. Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port District (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.

Defendants argue that the records may information that “could” be relevant or “could” contain valuable impeachment information. Opposition, 3:10-15. Speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant is not sufficient to meet Defendants’ burden of showing that the records sought are “directly relevant” to an issue tendered by Plaintiff. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1017.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.