FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al.

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

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 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

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Patrick Faddis, et al.’s motion to quash Defendant Grandcare, Inc.’s subpoena is granted.

Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

In this elder abuse case, Plaintiffs assert a variety of claims arising out of the alleged assault of Patrick Faddis, a resident of Defendant’s nursing facility. Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to provide adequate staffing to keep Patrick Faddis safe, Defendant negligently admitted Patrick Faddis into its care knowing it was not equipped to provide proper care, and that Defendant was aware of the assailant’s history of aggressive behavior but ignored it. Plaintiffs allege Patrick Faddis was injured as a result of the attack which caused his health to decline significantly.

Defendant issued subpoenas to UCSF Medical Center seeking “all medical records”, “all billing records” and “all X-Rays, MRI Scans, CT Scans and corresponding reports” of Patrick Faddis’ from January 1, 2014 to present. (Farris Decl. Exh. A.)

Plaintiffs move to quash the subpoena on the basis that the subpoenas are overly broad and violates Patrick Faddis’ right to privacy. As explained below, the Court agrees.

CP § 1987.1 provides that a person, may seek 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.” (CCP §§ 1987.1(a), (b)(2).)

As seen above, as phrased, the subject subpoenas seek essentially all of Patrick Faddis’ medical records regardless of subject matter from January 1, 2014 to present. Notably, Patrick Faddis was a resident at Defendant’s facility for 17 days in early 2023.

At the outset, while Defendant cites to the general principles of relevance in its opposition (and that discoverability is distinct from admissibility), the general scope of discoverability in civil actions is inapplicable where the records at issue are subject to the right to privacy, such as Patrick Faddis’ medical records.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas in Department 53

The right to privacy in medical records 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 plaintiff 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 encompassed 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 by 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].)

Patrick Faddis’ medical records are certainly protected by the right to privacy.

Here, applying the Hill framework, Patrick Faddis’ privacy interest has been established. There is no question Patrick Faddis has a legally protected privacy interest and a reasonable expectation of privacy in his medical records. Further, the seriousness of the invasion is clear given that the subpoena sought all of his medical records from January 2014 to present with no limitation as to subject matter. As the California Supreme Court stated in Williams, not every invasion of privacy requires the party seeking discovery of private information to establish a compelling need. 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.) The invasion here is obvious.

Defendant was therefore required to demonstrate a compelling need for the requested information. That is, Defendant was required to show that the information is directly relevant. As explained below, Defendant cannot meet this showing with respect to the documents requested in the subpoena because as phrased they seek all of Patrick Faddis’ medical records from January 2014 to present.

Again, Patrick Faddis has a legally protected interest in his medical records and the threatened intrusion into his privacy rights is serious given that the subpoena seeks essentially all of Plaintiff’s records without subject matter limitation from January 2014 to present. Plaintiff also has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records, to the extent they are unrelated to the issues in this lawsuit. However, such right is not absolute and private information may be subject to discovery where the party seeking such discovery demonstrates a compelling need for the information and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through less intrusive means of discovery such as depositions. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525-526 disapproved by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 only to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas in Department 53

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].) It is of course also true that the physician-patient privilege is waived as to physical or mental conditions placed at issue in a personal injury action such as the instant case. (Evid. Code §§ 996, 1016.) But even in such cases a party “is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific mental or emotional injury; the scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.” (Britt v.

Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 [citations omitted].) “As Lifschutz explains, plaintiffs 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.

The trial court thus obviously erred in ordering plaintiffs to disclose to defendant their entire lifetime medical histories and this aspect of the challenged discovery order must also be vacated.” (Id. at 864.)

“Although 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 extents 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, emphasis 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].)

In arguing that the subpoena is proper, Defendant points to the fact that Patrick Faddis had been diagnosed with ependymoma. Defendant contends it believes Plaintiffs intend to claim that the subject March 2023 assault affected Patrick Faddis’ ependymoma tumor, and the broad scope of the subpoena is necessary to address the cause of Patrick Faddis’ death in March 2024. Again, however, this argument relies on the general relevance standard for discovery which does not apply here given the privacy interest at issue.

More importantly, however, Defendant fails to acknowledge the actual language of the subpoena which asks for all of Patrick Faddis’ medical and billing records from January 1, 2014 to present with no limitations. The subpoenas seek any and all medical record regarding any and every medical condition. Patrick Faddis has most certainly not placed every medical issue he may have experienced from January 2014 to present at issue in this lawsuit.

To the extent Defendant suggests that there may be a pre-existing stressor that caused the injuries at issue this assertion does not justify the sweeping language of the medical records subpoenas. “In those situations where it is argued that a party waives

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas in Department 53

protection by filing a lawsuit, the court must construe the concept of ‘waiver’ narrowly and a compelling public interest is demonstrated only where the material sought is directly relevant to the litigation.” (Hunter Tylo v. Spelling Entertainment Group (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387.) In Tylo the plaintiff filed an action for discrimination and the defendant sought to question the plaintiff regarding her marital relationship. The Court found that while the plaintiff tendered her psychological condition as it related to the termination of her employment, the defendant had to demonstrate that any emotional distress in her marriage had a nexus with the distress from the employment termination and that merely asserting that other stressors might have caused the emotional injuries from the employment termination was insufficient to permit inquiry into the marital relationship. (Id. at 1388.)

Simply asserting that other stressors may have caused the claimed injuries does not justify allowing Defendant to access the entirety of Patrick Faddis’ records. “Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice.” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)

It cannot be said that Defendant has a compelling interest for the entirety of the medical records requested in the subject subpoenas. The instant subpoenas are not narrowly tailored to address any specific medical condition at issue in this action. Rather Defendant requested all of Patrick Faddis’ medical records with no subject matter limitation from January 2014 to present. Notably, while the limited period that Patrick Faddis was a resident at Defendant’s facility (for 17 days in early 2023) does not in itself determine the scope of permissible discovery, it only further indicates the overbreadth of the subpoenas in comparison to the time period for which medical records are sought without substantive limitation.

In any event, what is most important is that Patrick Faddis did not tender his entire medical history by filing this lawsuit. Patrick Faddis is “entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment [she] may have undergone in the past.” (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 864.) Allowing Defendant to obtain the records here would entitle it to Patrick Faddis’ entire medical history. There is no showing that this unlimited request, not specifically tailored to any specific condition at issue in the lawsuit, seeks information that is directly relevant and essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Id. at 859-860.)

As the subject subpoenas are currently phrased, Defendant seeks records with no limitation as to any specific medical condition or injury at issue in this action. While more narrowly tailored subpoenas may be appropriate, the instant ones which seek medical records potentially related to any medical condition or treatment are not and the Court will not undertake the task of defining what is appropriate. As a result, the motion to quash is granted, without prejudice to Defendant issuing appropriate and more narrowly tailored subpoenas. While not required by statute, the Court encourages the parties to meet and confer regarding appropriate document categories in advance of Defendants’ reissuance of subpoenas so as to reduce the likelihood of objections,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 05/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas in Department 53

potential motions, and further associated delays.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.