Case Number: BC577869??? Hearing Date: November 07, 2016??? Dept: 98
DAVID JOHN PEDROTTI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LEE FLANDERS, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC577869
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO QUASH OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
November 7, 2016
On April 7, 2015, Plaintiff David John Pedrotti (?Plaintiff?) filed this action against Defendants Lee Flanders (?Mr. Flanders?) and Yolanda Flanders (collectively, ?Defendants?) for premises liability and general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants provided Plaintiff with a ladder without slip feet while Plaintiff was performing work on Defendants? premises, causing Plaintiff to sustain serious bodily injuries. On August 1, 2016, Defendants issued subpoenas to Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California, and Dennis Liu, M.D. seeking Plaintiff?s insurance, billing, and medical records. Plaintiff now moves to quash these subpoenas or, alternatively, for a protective order.
If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or production of documents at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by a party, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ? 1987.1(a).
Plaintiff asserts that he was insured with Blue Cross prior to, rather than at the time of, the subject incident for ten years. Plaintiff was insured with Blue Shield of California at the time of the incident, but argues that the subpoena to Blue Shield is overbroad because it is not limited to records related to the injuries he suffered in the subject incident. Plaintiff further asserts that Dr. Liu is his primary care physician but that he did not treat with him in connection with this action and that he primarily treated with him for an unrelated heart condition. Plaintiff therefore argues that these subpoenas are overbroad and violate his constitutional right to privacy. Plaintiff requests that the subpoena to Blue Cross be quashed in its entirety and that the subpoenas to Dr. Liu and Blue Shield of California be limited to the past five years and to the body parts injured in the subject incident.
Plaintiff has alleged injuries to his pelvis, right hip, right leg, back, right elbow, and right arm as a result of the incident. He also alleges that he has suffered from limping, arthritis, and incontinence. Defendants argue that they require the medical records from Dr. Liu to determine whether Plaintiff suffered from any preexisting injuries and/or if his symptoms might be attributable to other causes. Defendants argue that the subpoenas should not be tailored to seek only records related to the body parts which Plaintiff claims were injured in the incident because Plaintiff?s complaints of arthritis, limping, and incontinence could have other causes. They also argue that a five year limitation on the records sought would cause them irreparable harm, contending that Plaintiff, who is 59 years of age and has worked as a plumber for 29 years, may have suffered arthritic injuries over his lifetime.
The Court finds that the subpoena issued to Blue Cross seeks records that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as Blue Cross was not Plaintiff?s insurer at the time of the incident. The Court also finds that the subpoena issued to Blue Shield of California, Plaintiff?s insurer at the time of the incident, is overbroad in scope because it contains no language that limits the requested records to those related to this action. Lastly, the Court finds the subpoena issued to Dr. Liu to be overbroad in time and scope. However, the Court notes that Defendants are entitled to some discovery from Dr. Liu to determine whether Plaintiff?s present injuries may have been caused by an unrelated preexisting condition.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff?s Motion to Quash is GRANTED. Defendants are instructed to issue a revised subpoena to Blue Shield of California that seeks only those records which are related to the incident underlying this action. Defendants are instructed to issue a revised subpoena to Dr. Liu seeking Plaintiff?s medical records for a period of five years prior to the incident.
In making an order pursuant to a motion made under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of 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. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ? 1987.2(a). Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00, contending that three hours were spent preparing this Motion and four hours will be spent preparing a reply and appearing at the hearing, at a rate of $250.00 per hour. Plaintiff also incurred a $60.00 filing fee.
The Court finds one hour to prepare this Motion and one hour to appear at the hearing, along with the filing fee, to be sufficient to compensate Plaintiff. The Court therefore awards Plaintiff a total of $560.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendants and their attorney of record, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT98@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2016
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court