On 05/30/2014 VADA WRIGHT filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NAOMI MARIE IGNACIO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
IGNACIO NAOMI MARIE
ABOIRALOR JOHNBULL ESQ.
5/30/2014: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
5/5/2015: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
5/5/2015: DEMAND FOR JURY
11/12/2015: [ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPARTMENT 91, 92, 93, 97)
11/13/2015: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
11/19/2015: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL
4/1/2016: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
Request and Entry of Dismissal (WITH PREJUDICE, ENTIRE ACTION ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
OSC-DISMISSAL (Notice of Settlmnt) Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Settlement Filed by Attorney for Deft/RespntRead MoreRead Less
Stip & Order-Continue Trial,FSC-PI (FSC=2/18/16 TD=03/1/16 ) Filed by DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Demand for Jury Trial Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Answer to Complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Receipt Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC547247 Hearing Date: April 19, 2021 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
MARIA PARRA SARIANANA,
HONG HOLDINGS, LLC,
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR EMPLOYMENT RECORDS
On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff Maria Parra Sarinana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Hong Holdings LLC (“Defendant”) for premises liability and negligence relating to a February 29, 2016 slip and fall.
Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena directed to Department of Health Care Services for “[a]ny and all insurance records, Medi-Cal records, Medicare claim information, correspondence, payments, claims, billing records, treatment authorization request forms, and any other documents contained within the insurance/medical file pertaining to [Plaintiff]” on the grounds that it is overbroad, not limited as to scope, and attempt to obtain records that are invasive of her constitutional right to privacy and violate the patient/physician privilege. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions and reimbursement of costs and attorney’s fees against Defendant and/or counsel of record in the amount of $2,160.
A deposition subpoena may request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony, as well as the production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (a).)
When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowered by the very nature of the action.” (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 43.) The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.) There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)
However, “although in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient . . . privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue, past cases make clear that such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849.) The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)
Plaintiff argues that the subpoena is overbroad because it is not limited in scope based on body parts or time. Plaintiff cites to her discovery responses which state that she “sustained injuries to [her] neck, back, right wrist and right knee.” (Plaintiff’s Ex. D, Amended Response to Form Interrogatory 6.2.)
However, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s discovery responses also state that she sustained injuries to her head, cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right wrist, right knee, right shoulder, and arthritis. (Id.) And, as pointed out by Defendant in its opposition, Plaintiff also stated in her deposition that these injuries caused her emotional distress. (Def.’s Ex. A.)
The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s claim for bodily injuries is extensive and finds that a limitation on the subpoena based on body parts would be impractical. However, as for Defendant’s argument that any limitation will prevent it from discovering whether Plaintiff had a history of ongoing pain that may originate from other causes, the Court is less persuaded. Plaintiff’s entire medical history would not be relevant unless Plaintiff has stated (in discovery or otherwise) that she has suffered similar accidents or injuries in the past. Without a showing that Plaintiff has a history of previous injuries, complaints of pain, or accidents, the Court is reluctant to allow the production of Plaintiff’s medical records from before February 29, 2016 (the date of the incident). The possibility that she “may have” sustained other injuries to different body parts that also gave rise to complaints of pain is insufficient to demonstrate “direct relevance” of this information to the action at issue.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part. The Subpoena must be limited to seek medical records from February 26, 2016 to the present, but does not need to be limited by body part.
The court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)
The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions because both parties acted with substantial justification.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
Dated this 19th day of April 2021
Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases