Case Number: BC700292 Hearing Date: January 25, 2019 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant, Margaret Roiphe’s Subpoenas for Medical Records; or in the Alternative for a Protective Order to Modify the Subpoenas, filed on 12/6/18 is GRANTED. The subpoenas issued by Defendant to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (X-Rays), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Billing), for production of records are ordered quashed. Motion, Ex. A-C.

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, Defendant has to show that the records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Defendant 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.

Defendant issued three subpoenas to Cedars-Sinai entities requesting “any and all medical documents,” films, and records of payment and billing limited to the past 10 years. Motions, Ex. A-C. The court can quash the subpoenas to protect the Plaintiff from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 1987.1.

According to Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories, Plaintiff’s injuries are limited to neck, back, left shoulder, left arm, leg varicose veins, left knee, right leg/thigh, headaches and insomnia. Opposition, Exhibit B, 11:22-25.The subpoenas issued by Defendant are not limited to any particular injury.

The subpoenas are overbroad in scope and subject matter. Defendant is 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.

Defendant argues that the records are calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to Plaintiff’s damages as well as causation. Opposition 5:20-22. Defendant is required to show that the records are “directly relevant” to an issue. Harris at 665.

Speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant is not sufficient to meet Defendant’s burden of “direct relevance.” Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1017.

The Court imposes sanctions of $1,560 against Defendant Margaret Roiphe, and her attorneys of record, Andrew C. Hubert, Esq and Wild Carter & Tipton, for unsuccessfully opposing Plaintiff’s motion without substantial justification. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1987.2

Moving party is ordered to give notice.