RAUL MORENO VS MIRIAM G CENTERO ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700902    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 4B

Case Number: BC700902    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

On April 5, 2018, plaintiff Raul Moreno (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against defendants Miriam Centeno and City of Bell Gardens (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries relating to an automobile versus pedestrian collision occurring on January 11, 2018. On August 19, 2019, Defendants issued a deposition subpoena to the California Department of Motor Vehicle (“DMV”) requesting “[a]ny and all records” pertaining to Plaintiff, and “[a]ll writings . . . which reference or reflect any aspect of [Plaintiff’s] driving record, driving privileges, and/or driving restrictions,” including “all printouts, lists, license status, records of accidents, vehicle history, license suspension or revocation or limitation, or any other aspect of driving.” Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena on grounds that it violates his right of privacy, seeks irrelevant information, and calls for production of documents beyond the deadline for non-expert discovery.

The 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 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).) “‘[F]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement’ and ‘[a]dmissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.’ These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery . . . and (contrary to popular belief) fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653, citations omitted.) 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.)

The subpoena is not untimely. Trial is currently set for May 6, 2020, and the order continuing the trial date stated that all discovery dates were to be based on the new trial date. Thus, discovery remains open.

Plaintiff argues the subpoena seeks irrelevant records protected by his right to privacy. Plaintiff was a pedestrian at the time of the accident, so his driving record is not at issue.

Defendant argues the Plaintiff placed his medical condition at issue by contending he has injuries of the sort his doctors would need to report to the DMV. Health and Safety Code section 103900 requires a doctor to report the local health officer persons diagnosed as having a case of a disorder characterized by lapses in consciousness. Vehicle Code section 12806 authorizes the DMV to refuse to issue a license to a person who has lapses of consciousness or episodes of marked confusion.

To this limited extent, Plaintiff has placed his medical condition at issue. He has produced medical records regarding his injuries, anti-seizure medication, and dizziness, forgetfulness, poor memory and poor concentration. By producing these records, Plaintiff has substantially lowed her expectation of privacy in this litigation concerning those conditions and injuries. The DMV’s production of documents concerning such conditions and injuries will not reduce Plaintiff’s privacy any further.

However, Defendant’s subpoena asks for records well beyond any records showing whether Plaintiff’s doctors reported medical conditions after the January 11, 2018 accident. The Court therefore GRANTS to motion to quash in part and limits the records request to DMV records dated after January 11, 2018 concerning any reports to the DMV about Plaintiff’s injuries, mental condition or anti-seizure medication.

The Court does not grant sanctions as the subpoena was overbroad and sought some irrelevant documents, but also requested documents that are potentially relevant.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.