JOHN FELACTU VS J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666078    Hearing Date: July 22, 2020    Dept: M

Hearing Date: July 22, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff John Felactu

Responding Party: Defendants J.K. Residential Services, Inc. and 11651-11652 York Avenue, LLC

Motion to Quash Records Subpoena

The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

The motion is MOOT and thus DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2017, plaintiff John Felactu filed a complaint against defendants J.K. Residential Services, Inc. and 11651-11652 York Avenue, LLC for premises liability based on a February 24, 2017 incident. Plaintiff alleges that defendants negligently failed to maintain, repair, inspect, and/or replace the heater. As a result, a fire ignited, which caused serious burns and injuries to plaintiff.

On April 9, 2018, defendants filed a cross complaint against Christina Dilan for contractual indemnity, comparative fault, equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

On September 8, 2018, Dilan filed a bankruptcy petition.

On November 15, 2018, defendants filed a Notice of Removal of this action.

On January 29, 2019, the bankruptcy court remanded the case.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests an order quashing defendants’ subpoenas to Torrance Memorial Medical Center plaintiff’s medical, radiology, and billing records.

CCP §1987.1(a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 575, 582-83. Either the nonparty witness who has been subpoenaed or any party to the action may challenge the deposition subpoena. Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:597.

Medical records are protected by the right to privacy. Although relevance is typically construed liberally (see Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169), the standard is more stringent when a party is attempting to discover documents which are constitutionally protected by the right to privacy, such as consumer records:

[E]ven when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. . . . [I]f an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective . . . [meaning] the least intrusive means to satisfy the interest. Mere convenience of means or cost will not satisfy that test for that would make expediency and not the compelling interest the overriding value.

Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855 (internal quotes and citations omitted).

This is true even where the party asserting the right to privacy is the party who brought the suit. See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 (“While the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such waiver must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits . . . . [A]n implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.”.) The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 661, 665.

Defendants served subpoenas on January 31, 2020. Plaintiff objects on the grounds that they are overly broad in scope and time. Through the meet and confer process, plaintiff agreed to limit the subpoenas to all documents and records concerning the care, treatment, examination of plaintiff from February 24, 2007 to the present solely related to his hands.

Plaintiff also contends that they are untimely because the cut-off for discovery was January 25, 2020.

In opposition, defendant argues that the motion is moot because plaintiff’s medical records were produced at the deposition of his treating physician, Dr. Michael Baker. Further, defendant asserts, the subpoenas complied with the language agreed to by counsel. Defendant also contends that the information sought fin the subpoenas with respect to plaintiff’s previous medical condition is relevant to the issues to be determined in this action.

The court finds that motion is MOOT because plaintiff’s medical records have been produced.

Both parties seek sanctions.

The court denies plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions, finding that defendant did not file an opposition in bad faith or without substantial justification. CCP §1987.2(a). The court also denies defendant’s request for sanctions although it is unclear as to why plaintiff did not withdraw the motion considering that the medical records had already been produced.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.