This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/23/2022 at 13:05:37 (UTC).

AZAR MOHEBI, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, SIMIN MOJALLALI VS FH & HF-TORRANCE I, LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/27/2021 AZAR MOHEBI, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, SIMIN MOJALLALI filed an Other lawsuit against FH HF-TORRANCE I, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LIA MARTIN and MICHAEL P. LINFIELD. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9971

  • Filing Date:

    05/27/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LIA MARTIN

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AZAR MOHEBI BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST SIMIN MOJALLALI

Defendants

FAMILY HEALTH AND HOUSING FOUNDATION

FH & HF-TORRANCE I LLC

Not Classified By Court

QUALITY HEALTH SERVICES CORP DBA HEALTH QUALITY MANAGEMENT GROUP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GARCIA STEPHEN MICHAEL

Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorney

LE MELLE TIFFANY A.

 

Court Documents

Order - COURTS ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT FH & HF-TORRANCE I, LLC; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

7/15/2022: Order - COURTS ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT FH & HF-TORRANCE I, LLC; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE TANYA ROGERS, CSR # 10178

7/15/2022: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE TANYA ROGERS, CSR # 10178

Notice of Ruling

7/20/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODU...)

7/20/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODU...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS

7/18/2022: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE,

7/18/2022: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE,

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/1/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

7/1/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF TIFFANY A. LE MELLE

7/1/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF TIFFANY A. LE MELLE

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT FH & HF-TORRANCE I, LLC TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

7/6/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT FH & HF-TORRANCE I, LLC TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS FH & HF TORRANCE I, LLC AND FAMILY HEALTH AND HOUSING FOUNDATIONS MOTION TO ABATE ACTION

7/6/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS FH & HF TORRANCE I, LLC AND FAMILY HEALTH AND HOUSING FOUNDATIONS MOTION TO ABATE ACTION

Separate Statement

7/6/2022: Separate Statement

Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE, AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FAMILY HEALTH AND HOUSING FOUNDATION INC.

7/13/2022: Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE, AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FAMILY HEALTH AND HOUSING FOUNDATION INC.

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ABATE ACTION

7/13/2022: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ABATE ACTION

Separate Statement

7/13/2022: Separate Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/13/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO ABATE ACTION

7/13/2022: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO ABATE ACTION

Notice of Ruling

7/15/2022: Notice of Ruling

101 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/14/2023
  • Hearing03/14/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2022
  • Hearing08/30/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2022
  • Hearing08/30/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 16; Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings (Filed by Defendants FH & HF Torrance I, LLC and Family Health and Housing Foundation-Torrance I, LLC;)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 16, Lia Martin, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODU...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2022
  • DocketEx Parte Application (FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS); Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2022
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE,); Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 16, Lia Martin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (from Defendant FH & HF-Torrance I, LLC, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions; Filed by Plaintiff Azar Mohebi;) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
115 More Docket Entries
  • 07/12/2021
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by FH & HF-Torrance I, LLC (Defendant); HOUSING FOUNDATION- TORRANCE I, LLC Erroneously Sued As Family Health and Housing Foundation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by FH & HF-Torrance I, LLC (Defendant); HOUSING FOUNDATION- TORRANCE I, LLC Erroneously Sued As Family Health and Housing Foundation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (OF SIMIN MOJALLALI AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST); Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor In Interest, Simin Mojallali (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: *******9971 Hearing Date: August 24, 2021 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas

Moving Party: Plaintiff Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Simin Mojallali

Responding Party: Defendant FH & HF – Torrance I, LLC dba Sunnyside Nursing Center

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to quash medical records subpoenas.

PRELIMINARY COMMENT:

In this opposition, Defendant’s counsel refers to Plaintiff Azar Mohebi – who was a woman – as both a male and female. (See e.g., Opp., pp. 3:8-9, “her operative complaint” and “her admission”; 6:1-2, “his complaint” and “his prior medical condition.”)

The Court reminds Defendant’s counsel that the opposition should include the pronoun that Plaintiff identifies with; it is not considered professional to copy and paste from other actions that are brought by different plaintiffs who may use different pronouns.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Simin Mojallali, brings this action to allege that while Azar Mohebi was a resident of Defendants’ elderly care facility, Azar Mohebi suffered from a severe stage III pressure ulcer on her coccyx area and suffered injuries that would not have occurred had Defendants simply adhered to applicable rules, laws and regulations, as well as the acceptable standards of practice governing the operation of a skilled nursing facility. (Complaint, ¶ 34.)

On May 27, 2021, Plaintiff Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Simin Mojallali commenced this action against Defendants FH & HF-Torrance I, LLC and Family Health and Housing Foundation for (1) elder abuse; (2) negligent hiring and supervision.

On July 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash deposition subpoenas.

ANALYSIS:

I. Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas

A. Legal Standard

A court “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 order 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 of Civ. Proc., ; 1987.1.) The court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas. (See e.g. Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-83.) The parties’ discussion of their meet and confer efforts, or lack thereof, is irrelevant as there is no meet and confer requirement in bringing a motion to quash. (Code of Civ. Proc., ; 1987.1.)

Regarding the right of privacy, courts must carefully balance a right of privacy against the interest in having just litigation. (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 371; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657.) If there is a serious invasion of a constitutional right to privacy, the party seeking the evidence must establish that the information sought is not only essential and directly relevant, but also that this information could not be discovered through less intrusive means. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552; Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.)

It is well established that medical records are afforded constitutional protection under a persons’ right to privacy. “[A]lthough in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient and psychotherapist-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.) “Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice.” (Ibid.)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff moves to quash “Defendant’s subpoenas for consumers records pertaining to Plaintiff Azar Mohebi, by and through her Successor in Interest, Simin Mojallali, from: West Hills Hospital & Medical Center, 7300 Medical Center Drive, West Hills, California 91307; West Hills Hospital & Medical Center - Billing, 7300 Medical Center Drive, West Hills, California 91307; West Hills Hospital & Medical Center - X-rays, 7300 Medical Center Drive, West Hills, California 91307; Sohail Davoudian, M.D., 1959 Kingsdale Avenue, Redondo Beach, California 90278; Core Analytics, 7316 Deering Avenue, Canoga Park, California 91403; Forest Lawn Memorial Park and Mortuary, 1712 South Glendale Avenue, Glendale, California 91205; Med-Plus Pharmacy, LTC, 281 East Rowland Street, Covina, California 91723; Providence Little Company of Mary Hospital - Torrance, 4101 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, California 90503; Providence Little Company of Mary Hospital - Torrance - Billing, 4180 West 190th Street, Torrance, California 90504; Providence Little Company of Mary Hospital - Torrance - X-Rays, 4101 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, California 90503; Advanced Eyecare Optometric Group, 330 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 110, Glendale, California 91203; Metropolitan State Hospital, 11401 South Bloomfield, No. 211A, Norwalk, California 90650; Metropolitan State Hospital - Billing, 11401 South Bloomfield, No. 211A, Norwalk, California 90650; Metropolitan State Hospital - Xrays, 11401 South Bloomfield, No. 211A, Norwalk, California 90650; John Abe, M.D., 2841 Lomita Boulevard, Suite 235, Torrance, California 90505; Diagnostic Laboratories and Radiology, 2820 North Ontario Street, Burbank, California 91504; Lifeline Ambulance, 1120 South Maple Avenue, Montebello, California 90640; Avanti Hospitals, LLC c/o Memorial Hospital of Gardena, 1145 West Redondo Beach Boulevard, Gardena, California 90247; Avanti Hospitals, LLC c/o Memorial Hospital of Gardena - Billing, 1145 West Redondo Beach Boulevard, Gardena, California 90247; Avanti Hospitals, LLC c/o Memorial Hospital of Gardena - X-rays, 1145 West Redondo Beach Boulevard, Gardena, California 90247; Walavan Sivakumar, M.D., 5215 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance, California 90503; NextGen Laboratories, 4229 Birch Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, California 92660; Golden Age Dental Care, 701 Raymond Avenue, No. 4B, Fullerton, California 92831; Narbonne Medical Group, Inc., 24845 Narbonne Avenue, Lomita, California 90717; Sherif Dimyan, M.D., 1141 West Redondo Beach Boulevard, No. 207, Gardena, California 90247; Skilled Nursing Pharmacy, 1900 West Garvey Avenue S, No. 388, Third Floor, West Covina, California 91790; Kindred Hospital South Bay, 1246 West 155th Street, Gardena, California 90247; Kindred Hospital South Bay - Billing, 14900 East Imperial Highway, La Mirada, California 90638; Kindred Hospital South Bay - X-rays, 1246 West 155th Street, Gardena, California 90247; Online Radiology Medical Group, 1770 Iowa Avenue, No. 280, Riverside, California 92507; Millennium Diagnostic Imaging Services, 1305 South Courson Drive, Anaheim, California 92804; Diagnostic Laboratory Science, 2720 Monterey Street, Suite 406, Torrance, California 90503.” (Motion, pp. 1:21-3:2.)

Plaintiff brings this motion “on the grounds the subject subpoenas are overbroad in scope (time and subject matter), not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and seek to violate Plaintiff’s patient-physician privilege under Evidence Code [sections] 992, 994 and privacy rights under the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 and Defendants have failed to show a compelling need for the discovery sought and thus fail to overcome the heightened burden associated with Plaintiff’s right of privacy and patient-physician privilege.” (Id. at p. 3:11-17.) Plaintiff argues that “while it is conceded that the Plaintiff has waived the Patient Physician Privilege as to that tendered in controversy in this lawsuit, the development of Coccyx stage III pressure ulcer on Azar Mohebi’s body while she was a resident of Defendant Facility, that waiver is not, as suggested by the defense in the scope of their subpoenas, as to each and every medical condition currently sought by the subpoenas at issue since 2014.” (Id. at p. 3:6-10.) Plaintiff asserts that “by seeking disclosure of the entirety of Azar Mohebi’s privileged and confidential information with no limitation as to subject matter, Defendants are impermissibly ‘fishing.’” (Id. at p. 3:11-13.)

In opposition, Defendant FH & HF – Torrance I, LLC dba Sunnyside Nursing Center argues that despite Plaintiff’s argument that “the only injury at issue is a pressure sore[,] . . . [t]his not the entirety of what Plaintiff alleges in her operative complaint, which sets forth numerous allegations regarding Plaintiff’s well-being both before her admission to Defendant’s facility and at the time of residency.” (Opp., p. 3:6-9.) Defendant asserts that “the Complaint for Damages alleges the following:

· At all relevant times, Plaintiff was over the age of 65 years-old and, therefore, an ‘elder’ adult. (Complaint ¶30).

· Plaintiff was admitted to Defendant’s facility on or about March or April 2018 because she had suffered a ruptured aneurism and required professional care. The aneurism left Plaintiff ‘unresponsive and in a catatonic like state.’ (Complaint ¶35).

· Plaintiff ‘had a Gtube and trachea, and was unable to respond or talk’ upon admission to Defendant’s facility. (Complaint ¶35).

· Upon admission, Plaintiff was at ‘high risk for skin breakdown and the deterioration of pressure sores due to her medical conditions.’ (Complaint ¶40).

· Plaintiff allegedly suffered from inadequate nutrition and hydration while at Defendant’s facility. (Complaint ¶36).

· Plaintiff allegedly suffered from inadequate hygiene while at Defendant’s facility. (Complaint ¶36).

· Plaintiff developed a Stage III pressure ulcer on her coccyx area. (Complaint ¶37).” (Id. at p. 3:10-21.)

Defendant contends that “the information requested in Defendant’s Business Records Subpoenas is directly relevant and probative of the issues raised in the Complaint, including Plaintiff’s health and well-being both at the time of her residency at Defendant’s facility, and preceding her residency.” (Id. at p. 4:3-5.) Defendant asserts that “a compelling needs exists to obtain Plaintiff’s records from the above-mentioned treating facilities and physicians . . . which directly related to the Plaintiff’s claim for alleged injuries suffered both prior to and during her admission to the Defendant’s facility, as well as the special damages and medical expenses claimed therein, which are highly relevant to not only plaintiff’s damage claims, but are also essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Id. at p. 6:7-12.) Defendant argues that “significant damages are being sought in this case as a result of the incident and defendant is entitled to obtain information that challenges and rebuts the plaintiff’s claims.” (Id. at p. 6:12-14.)

Defendant maintains that the only way it “can obtain complete and accurate information regarding Plaintiffs’ numerous allegations against the Defendant directly related to her overall medical condition, are through the subject subpoenas.” (Id. at p. 9:1-3.) Defendant also argues that the subpoenas are narrowly tailored because it “is not seeking Plaintiff’s entire medical history.” (Id. at p. 9:16-17.) Defendant asserts that “Plaintiff’s medical history preceding her admission to Defendant’s facility, and her medical condition from the time of her admission was placed at issue by Plaintiff” and these “medical records subpoenaed by the Defendant are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning Plaintiff’s medical condition that she has put at issue in this lawsuit.” (Id. at p. 9:17-21.)

In this case, Plaintiff mentions that she suffered a ruptured aneurism (Complaint, ¶ 35); was at high risk for skin breakdown and deterioration of pressure sores due to her medical conditions (id. at ¶ 50); and developed a Stage III pressure ulcer on her coccyx area (id. at ¶ 37). The 31 subpoenas at issue seeking all of Plaintiff’s medical records are patently overbroad and improper because they are for the timeframe from July 12, 2014 to the present with no limitation regarding the specific injuries at issue in this case. (See e.g., Separate Statement; see also Feusner Decl., ¶ 2, Exs. 1-31.) “We are mindful of the scope of the materials requested. Real party seeks any and all medical or hospital records relating to the care and treatment of petitioner to date; real party has made no attempt to limit the request to specific matters directly relevant to petitioner's pain and suffering from the physical injuries.” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017–1018.)

“[P]laintiffs are not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific physical, mental or emotional injury; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) “[F]or example, if a plaintiff claims that the airport operations have damaged his respiratory system, plaintiff would be obliged to disclose all medical information relating to his respiratory condition and could not limit discovery simply to those airport-related incidents which have allegedly impaired his condition.” (Ibid.)

As currently worded, the subpoenas are impermissibly overbroad and are not the least intrusive way of determining the specific medical ailments at issue. (Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 453.) Additionally, the Court has no duty to rewrite impermissibly broad discovery requests. (Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 851.) Although some of the information sought by the subpoenas could be relevant to the defense against Plaintiff’s case, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to justify their overbroad subpoenas. (See Davis, 7 Cal. App. 4th at 1017.) Defendants have not narrowly tailored the subpoenas to seek medical records evidencing only Plaintiff’s alleged development of Coccyx stage III pressure ulcer on Plaintiff’s body when she was a resident of Defendants’ facility (Complaint, ¶ 37); ruptured aneurism (id. at ¶ 35); and high risk for skin breakdown and deterioration of pressure sores due to medical conditions (id. at ¶ 40).

The motion to quash medical records subpoenas is GRANTED.

"


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where QUALITY HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where FAMILY HEALTH AND HOUSING FOUNDATION is a litigant

Latest cases where FH & HF-TORRANCE I LLC DBA SUNNYSIDE NURSING CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LE MELLE TIFFANY A.