Omnibus Motion to Quash or Modify the Consumer Records’ Subpoenas Issued by Defendants & Request for "First Look" Order; Motion to Quash the Subpoena Issued by Defendant El Portal Imaging Center to Lifestance Health, Inc.
The demurrer as to jurisdiction is OVERRULED. The complaint states that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. This may include an amount greater than the required amount of $35,000 for an unlimited civil matter. The remedy should the amount in controversy not exceed $35,000 would be for the court to reclassify the matter as a limited civil matter.
The demurrer as to formatting is OVERRULED. The court is to take a liberal view of inartfully drawn pleadings. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 452.)
The special demurrer asserting the complaint fails to contain a statement of facts is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10 requires the complaint contain a statement of facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language. (See, Code Civ. Proc. § 425.10, subd. (a).) Here, the complaint does not contain a statement of facts.
Leave to amend is granted. “[F]or an original complaint, regardless whether the plaintiff has requested leave to amend, it has long been the rule that a trial court's denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint ‘shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.’” (Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance. Co. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 406, 411, quoting King v. Mortimer (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 153, 158; see Cabral v. Soares (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1240 [“Only rarely should a demurrer to an initial complaint be sustained without leave to amend.”].) Here, the complaint does not show on its face that it cannot be amended.
Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days of this Court’s order.
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?”
25CV-04068 Jane Doe vs Shat Lal, et al.
Omnibus Motion to Quash or Modify the Consumer Records' Subpoenas Issued by Defendants & Request for "First Look" Order
Plaintiff’s omnibus motion is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff’s omnibus motion to quash the subpoenas issued by all Defendants is GRANTED. However, the subpoenas are subject to reissue after a first-look order is in place.
Plaintiff’s request for a first-look order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff’s request for a first-look order is GRANTED, however Plaintiff’s proposed firstlook order is DENIED at this time.
Although Plaintiff may have waived some rights by bringing her lawsuit, it is not a wholesale waiver. Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220, subdivision (a) states:
“In any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator shall establish specific facts showing that there is good cause for that discovery, and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to
the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This showing shall be made by a noticed motion, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, and shall not be made or considered by the court at an ex parte hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.220, subd. (a).)
The intent of the code section is clear in that it preserves plaintiff’s right to privacy regarding other sexual conduct.
Although the subpoenas do not appear to specifically request information regarding the sexual conduct of Plaintiff, the broad language of the subpoenas may inadvertently sweep such information up with the production of the other records. This apples to the requests for medical records from treating providers as well as subpoenas to employers. For example, and not exhaustive, the subpoena issued to Black Woman Sanctuary requesting employment records also requests “medical history, personal history, . . . and reports that refer or relate in any way to the named individual” and the subpoena to BET Information Systems, Inc. requests employment records that includes “medical reports, . . . pre-employment medical examination.” (Cunny Decl., Exhibit 1.)
Although much of the material subpoenaed may be discoverable, any information regarding other sexual conduct is protected pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220. Absent a showing of good cause and relevance they are not discoverable. Further, it will not be known if the records contain protected material until they are produced. Accordingly, a first-look order is appropriate.
It is argued that the protective order renders Plaintiff’s motion moot. The court does not agree. Paragraph 4 of the protective order specifically allows any party to assert a claim of privilege. What Plaintiff is requesting is the ability to have a first-look to assert any claim of privilege prior to the documents being produced. Considering the subject material the court finds this reasonable.
As the parties are amenable to a first-look order, the parties are ordered to further meet and confer regarding the terms. The meet and confer is to be completed by May 22, 2026. Should the parties reach an impasse, each party is to submit to the court, by May 29, 2026, their proposed first-look order and at that time the court will determine the terms.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to quash the subpoenas issued by all Defendants and for a first-look order is granted, subject to the preceding.
Motion to Quash the Subpoena Issued by Defendant El Portal Imaging Center to Lifestance Health, Inc.
In light of this court’s order regarding Plaintiff’s omnibus motion, Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena issued by defendant El Portal Imaging Center to Lifestance Health, Inc. is GRANTED.
The subpoena is subject to reissue after a first-look order is in place.
Case Management Conference
Appearance required.