McCowan v. Remarc Inc. et al.

Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 678-679, overruled on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.) Thus, medical records fall within the protected ambit of the state Constitution right to privacy. (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, supra 93 Cal.App.3d at p. 679.) Even absent a statutory privilege, the constitutional privilege would be held to operate. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.) Without a correspondingly important “reason to know”, defendant has no right to demand those records. (See Hill v.

National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 53.) The scope of wavier of the right of privacy by bringing suit must be narrowly construed so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits in fear of exposure of privacy activities. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.) An implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompass only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Id. at p. 842.)

The parties acknowledge that the Complaint raises allegations beginning in 2023. Accordingly, Defendant’s concession on reply, to limit the timeframe of the records sought to six months prior, is appropriate. Previously, and as submitted in the moving papers, Defendant initially sought time-agnostic records. (Yang Decl., Ex. D.) Until the concession on reply, Defendant continued to seek a period of 5 years. (Id., Ex. G.) An appropriate period to determine what conditions arose as a consequence of the allegations of the Complaint are more reasonably defined as from July 2022 to present.

Plaintiff further opposes that her entire health record is not at issue. Plaintiff submits that, as to mental health, this is a claim for a “garden variety” emotional distress. Plaintiff’s mental health immediately prior to the allegations of the Complaint are relevant to the issues of causation. However, the form submitted appears to seek all of Plaintiff’s medical records. The moving papers appear to be seeking production limited only to mental health. Any executed request should refrain from seeking general medical records, as opposed to mental health records.

The parties are directed to meet and confer as to any further concerns of the use of the private material for the purposes of this litigation. The court will entertain any stipulations for protective orders. The motion is granted, and Plaintiff is directed to cause the production of any mental health records from July 2022 to present. Defendant is directed to submit a new proposed order.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory unless the court finds that the party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances that would render sanctions “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).) Here, Plaintiff concedes that further responses were warranted, but due to inadvertence, were not timely served. The court finds counsel for defendant’s rate of $200 per hour as reasonable, but awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $600, inclusive of all motions considered.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk

will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 5-5-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

9