Plaintiff Mary Ann Denise Bubonic’s motion to quash subpoenas
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.”
A separate statement is required for motions to quash the production of documents in response to a subpoena, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5). Plaintiff failed to comply with the separate statement requirement. However, Defendants do not object.
3. Subpoena requests
Defendants issued subpoenas to Hoag Hospital’s Medical Records Department and UCI Medical Center’s Medical Records Department for the production of the following:
Any and all medical records, files, reports, correspondence, whatsoever, relating to any care, treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, consultation and/or findings, including but not be limited to, any and all emergency room records, nurses notes, SOAP notes, operative reports, radiology reports, pathology reports, all test and test results, medication records, physical and/or occupational therapy records, fall-risk testing records, workers' compensation records, sign-in sheets, color photographs, patient information sheets, handwritten notes, transcriptions, prescriptions, telephone messages, electronic media and any documents in the file from other health care providers, from June 5, 2023 to the present date pertaining to Mary Ann Denise Bubonic.... Documents should also include, but not be limited to, any data stored electronically regarding the time period listed above.
(Decl. of Teppara, Ex. A at pp. 6 and 18.)
Defendants issued subpoenas to Hoag Hospital’s Billing Department and UCI Medical Center’s Billing Department for the following:
Any and all billing records, including but not limited to itemized breakdown of charges, records of payments and/or discounts with proof of amounts paid, contractual adjustments, write-offs, liens and balance due, billing information with procedure and diagnosis codes (including any CPT codes), statements, computer print-outs, fees for professional services and correspondence from Medicare, Medicaid, Medi-Cal, the claims' records, from June 5, 2023 to the present pertaining to Mary Ann Denise Bubonic .... Documents should also include, but not be limited to, any data stored electronically regarding the time period listed above.
(Decl. of Teppara, Ex. A at pp. 12 and 24.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any and all medical records, files, reports, correspondence, insurance records, itemized billing records and payment records
(proof of amounts paid) whatsoever, relating to any care, treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, consultation and/or findings. Documents should also include, but not be limited to, any and all emergency room records, nurses notes, SOAP notes, operative reports, radiology reports, pathology reports, all test and test results, medication records, physical and/or occupational therapy records, workers' compensation records, sign-in sheets, color photographs, patient information sheets, handwritten notes, transcriptions, prescriptions, insurance/payment files, telephone messages, electronic media and any documents in the file from other health care providers from June 5, 2023 to the present date pertaining to Mary Ann Denise Bubonic...
(Teppara Decl., Ex. A at p. 30.)
Plaintiff objects on the basis of privacy. There is an inherent right of privacy in medical records. The constitutional right to privacy, however, is not absolute. (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004). The California Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs “may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue ... .” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. ...The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) “A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Id.).
“The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.” (Davis v. Superior Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)
The fact that information “might” be relevant or that a party speculates that the records could be material is insufficient. (See Davis, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at 1017-1018 [“Real party has not countered with any showing of direct relevance; rather, real party only speculates that in the records requested there could be material which might be relevant to various issues in the action, such as the nature and extent of emotional distress suffered, causation of the accident and petitioner's condition at the time of the accident.
Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice. [Citations omitted.] 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. Petitioner has established that the records do not concern treatment for the injuries for which she claims damages.
The request is thus overbroad because it necessarily encompasses privileged material which is not relevant to the lawsuit.”].)
See also Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864: “[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.” (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff has established that she has a right to privacy to her medical records, has a reasonable expectation of privacy for her medical records, and that the subpoenas intrude on this information. Accordingly, Defendants must raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves.
Defendants contend that these records are directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the action, pursuant to Britt, supra. First, Defendants note that the subpoenas only seek records starting on the date of the incident - June 5, 2023 to the present-and do not seek any pre-incident records.
Next, Defendants argue that the records are also directly relevant to how and why Plaintiff fell, as the fall occurred at night, and the mechanics of her fall remain unknown.
Defendants also contend that in Plaintiff’s own complaint, she alleges that the fall injured her “health, strength, and activity, causing severe shock to her body,” that her injuries “have caused and continue to cause [her] great mental and physical pain and suffering,” that she continues to incur medical expenses, and that she has suffered a loss of income and earning capacity. (Compl. ¶¶ 23–25, 33–35.) Therefore, her own alleged damages pertain to body parts and functions that go beyond her wrist and head.
Finally, in support of Plaintiff’s Reply, Plaintiff attached copies of her form interrogatory responses wherein she confirms that Hoag Hospital – Newport Beach, UCI Medical Center and Corona Del Mar Physical Therapy and Newport Hand Center provided a consultation, examination and/or treatment. (See Ex. A to Decl. of Teppara ISO Reply). Her form interrogatory response also confirms that she had the following disability immediately before the incident: “Degenerative disc disease; in process of recovering from hip fracture.” (See Ex.
A to Decl. of Teppara ISO Reply). And while Plaintiff stated in her form interrogatories that she attributes “Broken left wrist; head laceration” to the incident, she also states that “Responding Party reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this response, and to disclose further information and/or documents supportive of Responding Party’s contentions herein, and in so doing, intend to rely on any and all additional information obtained, up to and including the time of trial.. .” (See Ex.
A to Decl. of Teppara ISO Reply).
The court finds that the records requested are relevant to establishing causation and damages, particularly in this instance where Plaintiff admits that she had degenerative disc disease and was in process of recovering from a hip fracture immediately before the incident.
While Plaintiff contends that only her wrist and head were injured, her own Complaint alleges that the fall injured her health, strength and activity, caused severe shock to her body, and caused and continue to cause her great mental and physical pain and suffering. Furthermore, the records are limited in time (date of incident to present). Pursuant to the above, restricting the subpoenas to Plaintiff’s left wrist and head would prejudice Defendants’ ability to obtain discovery relating to Plaintiff’s damages and causation.
However, because these records may include medical information that is not relevant to this action, the court finds that a protective order is required to limit the use and dissemination for the records produced pursuant to each of the five subpoenas.
Defendants and Plaintiff shall submit a proposed protective order for the records responsive to the five subpoenas within 14 days of this ruling.
Defendants shall give notice.
12 Corona Del Mar Off calendar. Properties, Inc. v. Lui
13 Vytautas John Denied. Jusionis As Trustee Of The Plaintiff to give notice. Vytautas Jusionis & Bok Sil Ji Trust v. Foster
24