CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Pamela Ann Cushenberry Starks in Department 53

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/cross-complainant Alvarado-Gil’s motion to quash plaintiff/cross-defendant Condit’s subpoena for the former’s records from Dr. Starks is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of plaintiff Condit’s employment with defendants Alvarado-Gil and the California State Senate. His complaint filed on 9/5/2024 asserts various causes of action for harassment, discrimination, retaliation as well as both injunctive and declaratory relief. On 11/12/2024, a cross-complaint was filed on behalf of defendant Alvarado-Gil and “Committee Alvarado Gil for Senate [sic]”. An amended crosscomplaint was filed on 8/4/2025, asserting against plaintiff Condit causes of action for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion. No trial date has been set.

Moving Papers. Defendant Alvarado-Gil now moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1 to quash the entirety of plaintiff Condit’s subpoena for records from Dr. Starks on the grounds that Condit “outrageously seeks to uncover and make public over twenty (20) years of the Senator’s private and personal psychotherapy treatment records” despite not being “relevant for any purpose, as the Senator alleges only garden-variety emotional distress damages which can be proven by the testimony of the Senator herself,” and despite being protected from disclosure by “the Senator [sic] Constitutional rights and statutory privileges.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:4-13.)

Alternatively, the moving papers request the Court to “significantly limit the scope of the subpoena to the relevant timeframe and allow for the Senator’s counsel to conduct a privilege review of the documents and provide a privilege log if any records are withheld.” (Id., at p.2:13- 16.)

The Court notes that the moving declaration by attorney Witkin does nothing more than attach a copy of the underlying subpoena directed to Dr. Starks.

Opposition. Plaintiff Condit opposes, arguing first that defendant Alvarado-Gil’s claim of “merely seeking garden variety emotional distress damages” conflicts with her verified discovery responses and her own opposition to Condit’s demurrer to the cross-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Pamela Ann Cushenberry Starks in Department 53

complaint, in which defendant asserted her “emotional distress was so severe that she was forced to seek therapy.” (Opp., p.1:12-21.) The opposition adds that there is “good cause” for this subpoena because defendant Alvarado-Gil has ‘opened the door’ for this discovery by “putting her emotional health at issue” and this subpoena seeks information that is “undeniably” reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relat[ing] directly to Alvarado-Gil’s claimed injuries and/or damages” and the moving papers fail to establish any valid justification for quashing this subpoena. (Id., at p.1:22-p.2:1.)

Plaintiff further insists that the moving party “completely failed to meet and confer before filing this motion” and plaintiff Condit has “no objection to entering into a protective order to address any concerns Alvarado-Gil has over these records,” as well as “reducing the time period to ten years without prejudice to seeking additional records if good cause supports it.” (Id., at p.2:2-5.) Finally, the opposition concludes with a request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $999.

Reply. In reply, defendant Alvarado-Gil maintains that she “tried to meet and confer to negotiate appropriate guardrails to reasonably limit and narrow the subpoena so that it would be restricted to the discovery only of relevant and timely records” and even “offered to withdraw the instant Motion” but these efforts were “ignored.” (Reply, p.2:14- 16.) According to Alvarado-Gil, plaintiff Condit’s request for sanctions is “improper[]” especially since it was plaintiff who “refus[ed] to reasonably limit and narrow the scope of the subpoenaed records.” (Id., at p.2:16-18.)

Legal Standards for Discovery of Medical Records

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2017.010.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v.

Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

While the scope of general discovery is broad, the right to privacy in medical records

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Pamela Ann Cushenberry Starks in Department 53

has long been recognized. The right to privacy provided for in Cal. Const., art. I, § 1 may be invoked by a litigant as justification for refusal to answer questions or respond to requests for information that unreasonably intrude on that right. A party asserting a privacy claim has the burden of establishing each element, specifically: 1. A legally protected privacy interest; 2. A reasonable expectation of privacy; and 3. A serious invasion of the privacy interest. (See, e.g. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1.)

There can be no dispute that the right to privacy encompasses a person’s medical information. 'A person’s medical profile is an area of privacy infinitely more intimate, more personal in quality and nature than many areas already judicially recognized and protected.' (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 678.) [disapproved in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8 only to the extent that the case assumed without conducting the Hill analysis that a compelling need is automatically required when a party seeks discovery of private information].)

Rather, '[o]nly obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.' (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 557.)

Furthermore, '[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 such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a patient's past medical history to scrutiny.' (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849 [italics in original]; see also In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 435 [The scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant herself has brought before the court].)

Discussion

Although Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1 does not contain any explicit mandatory meet-and-confer provision akin to §2016.040 (which is effectively incorporated into numerous statutes governing various discovery motions), both sides of the current dispute complain that the other failed to adequately meet and confer on the numerous issues presented by this motion. In light of this and the opposition’s willingness to consider certain limitations on the underlying subpoena as well as an appropriate protective order governing the use and disclosure of any information contained in the doctor’s records, this Court will now direct the parties to engage in a good faith meetand-confer process in an attempt to resolve informally the various issues posed by the current motion and opposition thereto.

It is worth adding here that given the number of motions such as this which must be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Pamela Ann Cushenberry Starks in Department 53

addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all parties’ legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.)

The parties shall promptly meet and confer either in person or by telephone. The purpose of this requirement is to maximize to prospects for resolution of all disputed issues by fostering an open dialogue which is not constrained by the mere exchange of letters and/or emails.

In the event the parties are able to resolve all issues presented by this motion, defendant Alvarado-Gil shall promptly notify the Clerk for Department 53 by telephone and in writing that this motion may be dropped from calendar.

Otherwise, the parties shall no later than 1/30/2026 file a joint statement that must clearly identifies each individual issue presently by this motion and state whether the parties have resolved their dispute(s) over each issue. For each issue which has not been completely resolved, the joint statement shall clearly identify/explain the nature of the remaining dispute(s) requiring resolution by the Court and clearly describe each party’s last position with respect to the remaining dispute(s) so as to assist the Court in resolving this matter.

The parties shall format their joint statement in a manner which will enable the Court to most efficiently rule on the unresolved issues.

Accordingly, defendant Alvarado-Gil’s motion to quash is on the Court’s own motion CONTINUED to 2/17/2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department. (Should the parties require more time to complete the requisite meet-and-confer process and/or to file their joint statement, they may submit a letter directed to this department specifying the reasons for same and the amount of additional time sought.)

Except as noted above, no further filings on this motion to quash will be permitted or considered.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Pamela Ann Cushenberry Starks in Department 53

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)