Case Number: BC604889??? Hearing Date: February 08, 2017??? Dept: 98
JIMMY CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REGAL CINEMAS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC604889
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONSDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
February 8, 2017
On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff Jimmy Castillo (?Plaintiff?) filed this action against Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc. (?Defendant?) for alleged damages arising out of a January 4, 2014 slip and fall. Defendant has issued fifteen (15) subpoenas to Citrus Valley Medical Center ? Inter-Community Campus; Citrus Valley Medical Center ? Queen of the Valley Campus; Foothills Pain Management Clinic; Pleitez Medical Clinic; Community Hospital of Huntington Park; Los Angeles Fire Department; Dharmesh S. Mehta, M.D.; Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and L.A. Health Plan. These subpoenas collectively seek any and all medical records, billing records, radiological films, and correspondence pertaining to Plaintiff from any and all times to the present date. Plaintiff now moves to quash these subpoenas in the grounds that they are overbroad and violate his right to privacy.
Any party may obtain discovery ?regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ? if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ? 2017.010. ?The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.? Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ? 2017.020(a). If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court 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 argues that Defendant?s subpoenas should be limited to Plaintiff?s orthopedic injuries related to his back, knees, and hips. On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff sent Defendant a demand letter which states that Plaintiff has a history of psoriatic arthritis requiring left hip replacement, collagen vascular disease, and insomnia. The letter also lists twenty (20) injuries Plaintiff claims are a direct result of the incident, including hip joint pain, lumbar post-laminectomy syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, chronic osteoarthritis of the right hip, lumbar spine stenosis, lumbar disc displacement, generalized myalgia, bilateral knee pain, and sciatica. Defendant contends that the breadth of Plaintiff?s alleged physical injuries warrants the subpoenas? unrestricted parameters. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to the filing of this Motion and that Plaintiff?s right to privacy was waived when his counsel produced thousands of pages of his medical records which included records related to medical conditions unrelated to the slip and fall incident.
The Court has reviewed the parties? meet and confer correspondence and finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred prior to filing his Motion.
In support of its argument of waiver, Defendant cites to Evidence Code section 912. This section deals with waiver of specific privileges not relevant here, such as the attorney-client and marital communications privileges. Defendant cites to no authority that supports the contention that disclosure of some medical records waives a litigant?s right to privacy. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not waived his right to privacy here.
The Court finds that the subject subpoenas are overbroad as to time, but not as to scope, as Defendant has no reasonable justification in failing to limit its subpoenas to a reasonable amount of time preceding the incident, but the affected body parts to have been the result of the incident are sufficiently broad as to justify no limitation as to the scope of the records subject to discovery. Plaintiff?s Motion to Quash is therefore GRANTED. Defendant is instructed to withdraw the subject subpoenas and reissue subpoenas seeking records from the five (5) years preceding 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). The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here.
Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,560.00, contending that six hours were spent preparing this Motion, three hours will be spent reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply, and one hour will be spent appearing at the hearing, at a rate of $350.00 per hour. Plaintiff also incurred a $60.00 filing fee.
Because this order only limits the time but not the scope of the subpoenas, 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 $760.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and its 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 8th day of February, 2017
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court