Stanley Kevin Thomas v. Flexdrive Services, LLC, et al.

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.) DISCUSSION Defendant argues that the deposition subpoena served on non-party Coastal Medical Group was procedurally proper and legally sufficient, and therefore obligates non-party Coastal Medical to comply. Defendant contends there is no dispute that the subpoena was timely and

correctly served, and that under California law a valid subpoena alone is enough to require production of records absent a statutory privilege. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff's objection is improper because it amounts to giving legal advice to a non-party and attempting to obstruct legitimate discovery. According to Defendant, Plaintiff placed his medical condition at issue in the litigation, making related medical records discoverable, and is now improperly interfering with the subpoena process by advising the non-party to ignore its legal obligations.

Defendant emphasizes that the scope of discovery extends equally to non-parties and that subpoenas for business records operate as depositions under the Code of Civil Procedure. Once good cause is shown, no person has a right to refuse production unless a recognized privilege applies. Defendant maintains that attorneys have ethical and professional duties not to advise witnesses to disobey lawful subpoenas and that doing so may constitute witness tampering and expose counsel to sanctions, contempt, or disciplinary action.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's motion to compel fails to meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 because Defendant has not shown that the requested medical records are directly relevant or narrowly tailored. Plaintiff contends the subpoenas are overbroad because they seek records for all body parts and conditions rather than limiting the requests to the specific injuries alleged in the lawsuit, namely the hips and back. According to Plaintiff, requesting unrelated medical history exceeds the permissible scope of discovery and should be quashed.

Plaintiff further argues that the subpoenas violate his constitutional right to privacy in medical information. Filing a personal injury action does not constitute a blanket waiver of privacy, and discovery must be confined to information directly related to the injuries placed at issue. By seeking wholesale access to Plaintiff's full medical history, Defendant intrudes beyond what is legally justified. Finally, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for the breadth of the requested records.

Because Defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning showing why such expansive discovery is necessary, Plaintiff argues the motion to compel should be denied. "[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 [a] lawsuit, . . . they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past." (Britt v.

Superior Court (1978) 20 C.3d 844, 864, citation and footnote omitted.)¿However, ". . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent's right to a fair trial.¿Thus, courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery." (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.) Here, the subpoena requests "All documents and records stored in any format or method, including,

but not limited to, all medical records..." (Risbrough Decl. Exhibit 1.) While Defendants have a right to examination and discovery of physical injuries that have been placed in controversy, a subpoena request that is not limited to the injuries in controversy and with no time limitations is overbroad. Therefore, the Court denies the Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena Sanctions Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a sanctionable misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2023.030 subd. (a), 2023.010 subd. (d).) If a motion to compel a party to respond to discovery is successful, the court must impose a monetary sanction against that party unless the sanction would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc § 2030.290 subd. (c), 2023.030 subd. (a), 2023.010 subd. (d); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The monetary sanction includes the moving party's reasonable expenses, such as attorney's fees and costs. (Code Civ.

Proc § 2023.030 subd. (a).) Defendant requests that sanctions be imposed on Plaintiff in the amount of $1,799.70. However, as the instant motion was unsuccessful, the Court denies the request for sanctions. Home -->)" -->