On 12/28/2017 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by RONALD GUNN against MICAHEL PAOLILLO in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 TO 25
2/14/2018: DEFENDANT MICHAEL PAOLILLO'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
2/14/2018: CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES)
3/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
5/21/2018: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANT RONALD GUNN
3/15/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
5/21/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)
12/28/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Micahel Paolillo (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Ronald Gunn (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANT RONALD GUNNRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Plaintiff and Cross-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ronald Gunn (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT MICHAEL PAOLILLO'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Summons Issued; Filed by Micahel Paolillo (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Micahel Paolillo (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Ronald Gunn (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons on Cross ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Ronald Gunn (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC688225 Hearing Date: November 04, 2019 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
MICHAEL PAOLILLO, et al.,
Case No.: BC688225
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF MEDICAL RECORDS
November 4, 2019
Plaintiff, Ronald Gunn filed this action against Defendant, Michael Paolillo for damages arising out of a physical altercation. Defendants propounded a deposition subpoena for production of Plaintiff’s insurance records from Blue Cross Blue Shield. The insurance company refused to produce the records without a signed authorization from Plaintiff. At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization concerning his insurance records.
The motion is denied. Defendant presents no relevant authority in support of the motion to compel Plaintiff to sign an authorization. The Court is aware of Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 918-919, wherein the Court of Appeals considered this issue. In Miranda, the plaintiff made an underinsured motorist’s claim. The defendant commenced discovery, which revealed that the plaintiff had been treated for post-concussion symptoms with Kaiser in 2000. The defendant followed up with a subpoena to Kaiser, but Kaiser indicated it would only release the records with a signed authorization from the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to sign an authorization. The defendant ultimately filed an action to commence discovery with the Superior Court. The defendant concurrently filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of the records from Kaiser. The motion was unopposed, and the trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff continued to refuse to sign the authorization, and the trial court ultimately granted a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed, but the sole issue on the appeal was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss the case; the Court of Appeals did not rule on the propriety of the issuance of the order compelling the plaintiff to sign the authorizations.
Notably, to the extent the Court of Appeals did rule on the issue, it was highly skeptical of the method of discovery. In a footnote, it indicated, “The record does not reflect the reason the medical facilities requested plaintiff’s authorization. Perhaps defendant did not comply with the procedures to obtain “personal records” of a “consumer” as required by section 1985.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which case the medical facilities had a sufficient basis to refuse compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (k).) If section 1985.3 had been complied with, the record does not indicate why defendant did not simply move to compel compliance with the subpoena pursuant to section 1987.1, instead of pursuing an unwilling plaintiff for a signed authorization. These matters remain mysteries because of the scant record presented to the trial court.”
There is ample California appellate authority holding that the trial court does not have the power to create additional methods of discovery. See, for example, San Diego Unified Port Dist. V. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405 and the cases referenced therein. The motion to compel is therefore denied.
Notably, Defendant contends the insurance company is in Illinois, so this court cannot enforce a subpoena against it. The methods for enforcement of subpoenas directed at out-of-state entities are set forth at CCP §2029.300, et seq. Defendant therefore has a mechanism for enforcement of the subpoena.
Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the opposition. The request is denied. While the Court cannot compel Plaintiff to sign the authorization, the Court will not reward Plaintiff for refusing to do so voluntarily. The Court always appreciates the parties’ cooperation in discovery matters, and will not reward conduct designed to frustrate the process.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.