TRACY SIMERLEY ET AL VS. GOLDEN GATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, August 27, 2025, Line 7 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. PLAINTIFFS TRACY SIMERLEY, AND LYNETTE SIMERLEY's Motion To Quash Three Deposition Subpoenas For Production Of Medical Records Directed To Kaiser Permanente.

Plaintiff Tracy Simerley's motion to quash is granted. Defendant Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District's subpoenas to Kaiser Permanente are quashed without prejudice to allow Defendant to narrow the subpoenas or otherwise include a First Look Agreement.

Although personal injury plaintiffs implicitly waive their right to privacy, the waiver is not unlimited. (Davis v. Superior Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014 (holding that an implicit waiver of the right of privacy will encompass discovery "directly relevant" to the plaintiff's claims).) "[P]laintiffs . . . may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing th[e] lawsuit." (Britt v. Superior Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531 alters the showing a defendant must make to overcome privacy objections but does not alter the waiver analysis.

Here, Defendant's subpoenas are clearly overbroad in seeking "any and all" documents regarding Plaintiff's health information and billings with no time limitation. While some documents may be relevant to Defendant's arguments, having no time or information limit opens up Plaintiff's medical history far beyond his waiver of his relevant medical records surrounding his personal injury claim or his claim for future earnings. The motion to quash is granted without prejudice to Defendant's service of new narrower subpoenas or Defendant's service of the same subpoenas subject to a first-look agreement with Simerley.

Defendant seeks sanctions; Simerley does not. The court nonetheless orders Defendant to pay $500 to Simerley in sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., section 1987.2, subdivision (a). This provision states that in relevant part that, "in making an order pursuant to motion made under . . . Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive."

The court does not find bad faith here but does find that the overbroad request lacked substantial justification and one or more of its requirements was oppressive. The discovery statutes are intended to be self-executing and Simerley offered a reasonable compromise proposal here that Defendant did not accept. The subpoenas were plainly overbroad. The court deems it warranted to award sanctions here to deter similar discovery issues. Defendant shall pay sanctions within 30 days of entry of this order. [End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] =(301/CVA) | |