Vijaya Barathy Sivakumar v. Providence Health System - Southern California

engagement in other matters, but will require Plaintiff's attorneys to schedule the trial, at today's Trial Setting Conference, on a date on which Plaintiff's attorneys will be available. The Court advises Plaintiff that her failure to have an attorney available for trial on the next scheduled trial date will likely result in dismissal of the action.

The Court finds there is no statutory or other authority permitting dismissal for failure to make a settlement offer, even if the Court orders a party to do so. Importantly, Plaintiff did ultimately make such an offer, though the court-ordered deadline to do so had already passed when they did so. Nor or is there authority permitting the Court to grant such a motion because a party sought a continuance of a summary adjudication motion and ultimately failed to oppose the motion; notably, in the interim, the Court advises Plaintiff's attorneys that it would be granting summary adjudication motions directed at fraud causes of action going forward, which likely led Plaintiff to decide not to oppose the motion. The motion on these grounds is therefore also denied.

The parties are reminded that there is a Trial Setting Conference on calendar concurrently with the hearing on the above motion. The Court asks the parties to make arrangements to appear remotely at the FSC and hearing on the motion.

1.

Background

Facts Plaintiff, Vijaya Barathy Sivakumar filed this action against Defendant, Providence Health System - Southern California for disability discrimination and related claims, alleging she has worked as a nurse for Defendant since 2016, but sustained a bilateral shoulder injury in 2021 while lifting a patient, and Defendant did not accommodate the injury and ultimately terminated her employment. Plaintiff's operative complaint is her First Amended Complaint, which she filed on 3/27/26. It includes causes of action for: Unlawful Disability Discrimination Unlawful Retaliation Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses

The Court was originally scheduled to hear this motion on 3/19/26. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court continued the motion to 4/21/26 to require the parties to meet and confer. The parties have filed numerous stipulations continuing the hearing on the motion to permit them to resolve the issues. To date, the parties have filed nothing further substantively related to the motion. The Court presumes the parties have resolved all outstanding issues, and takes the motion to compel further responses off calendar as moot.

3. Motions to Quash (4)

a. Subject Subpoenas

Defendant propounded subpoenas on Plaintiff's medical providers, including Provide Family Medical Center - Redondo Beach, Providence Medical Institute Primary Care - San Pedro, Providence Urgent Care - Torrance, and Sports & Spine Orthopaedics. The subpoenas are "any and all" records style subpoenas, and seek medical records from the past ten years.

b. Parties' Positions

Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas, contending Defendant admits Plaintiff is disabled, such that the subpoenas seek private medical information with no meaningful relevance to the lawsuit. There are four motions to quash on calendar, but the issues are substantially the same as they relate to each of the four motions, and the Court will address the motions collectively.

Defendant opposes the motions, contending Plaintiff has recently amended her complaint to claim significant emotional distress damages, which Defendant is entitled to discover. Defendant contends Plaintiff has placed both her physical condition (her disability) and also her mental health condition (emotional distress) at issue by way of this lawsuit. Defendant contends Plaintiff's emotional distress damages are not "garden variety," and therefore her medical records, which will shed light on her mental health, must be produced.

Plaintiff, in reply, contends nothing in the opposition contradicts the fact that Defendant concedes her disability and the medical conditions at issue in the complaint, and none of the listed physicians are mental health practitioners, such that it is unclear what Defendant is seeking to recover other than a general fishing expedition.

c. Law Governing Discovery of Medical Records

By filing a personal injury action, plaintiffs place in issue their past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon. All medical and/or psychological records relating to the claimed injuries are thus discoverable. Evidence Code Sec.Sec. 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862-864.

Normally, information about medical conditions entirely different from the injury sued upon is beyond the scope of discovery. However, medical records pertaining to an unrelated condition are discoverable on a showing of "good cause" if the condition is relevant to the issue of proximate causation. Evidence Code Sec.999; Slagle v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1314-1315.

Notably, where a plaintiff makes no claim of mental or emotional distress, a "garden variety" personal injury action seeking damages for "pain and suffering" does not place the plaintiff's mental condition in issue. The plaintiff's right to privacy in his or her post-injury psychotherapeutic records outweighs any need for discovery thereof. See Davis v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016.

d.

Analysis

The Court, after reviewing the parties' papers, is unclear on what Defendant is attempting to discover from Plaintiff's medical records. Plaintiff establishes, in the moving papers, that Defendant has conceded all of Plaintiff's claimed physical injuries that support her disability claim. Defendant does not dispute this in opposition.

The ordinary purpose of discovering medical records is to disprove the allegation that the medical injuries occurred and/or are as bad as the plaintiff contends, or to show that they did occur but were due to some other cause. Most of the law in this regard has developed in the context of personal injury claims, which are not at issue here. Plaintiff herein is alleging disability discrimination, and if Defendant concedes the existence of the underlying conditions at issue in the lawsuit, it is unclear how the medical records could aid Defendant in its defense of the lawsuit.

Defendant's opposition centers on Plaintiff's recent amendment to her complaint, pursuant to which she seeks to recover emotional distress damages. Defendant's subpoenas, however, are not propounded on mental health providers. It seems Defendant is hoping to discover that Plaintiff had additional medical conditions, other than those that form the basis of her disability claim, that it can argue caused or contributed to her emotional distress damages. This is, however, far too attenuated to permit Defendant to overcome the Constitutional right to privacy in Plaintiff's own medical records.

Defendant cites no authority permitting discovery of ten years' worth of primary, urgent, and orthopaedic medical records in order to determine a possible alternative source of claimed emotional distress. Defendant has the burden, once Plaintiff makes a privacy objection, to show heightened good cause for production of the subject records. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4 th 1, 31. Defendant has not met that burden, and the motions to quash are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV00853 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: S27

Crystle Caigoy and Simona Danesh of Slater Slater Schulman LLP seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Roe T.B., declaring there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship such that further representation is not possible. Counsel declares Client's address was confirmed by telephone in the past month, and has filed proof of service on Client and all parties who have appeared in the action. There is no timely opposition to the motion.

Trial is not scheduled until 12/07/26 and therefore there will be no prejudice to Client as a result of the granting of the motion. Notably, the same attorneys were relieved from their representation of Co-Plaintiff, Jane Doe P.W., on 7/28/26. The motion is granted; relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Client. Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV01093 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: S27

1.

Background

Facts Plaintiff, Ibrahim Arno filed this action against Defendants, Ocean Breeze Apartments, LLC, Excel Residential Services, Inc., Southern California Gas Company, and Hansa Investments, Inc. for breach of the warranty of habitability, premises liability, IIED, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, private nuisance and negligence. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff filed on 5/12/26. The majority of the claims in the complaint are made against Plaintiff's landlord, and encompass a wide variety of habitability and other claims. As