Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum
CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208680 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum: Plaintiffs, Fredrick Phillips and Heather Phillips, move to quash two subpoenas duces tecum issued to Plaintiffs respective medical providers. Defendants, Prime Healthcare Services-Shasta, LLC dba Shasta Regional Medical Center and Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. oppose the motion.
The subpoena regarding Heather Phillips’ medical records was withdrawn by Defendants, therefore the motion regarding the subpoena issued to Mercy Medical Center is denied as moot.
Procedural Defects. As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue that the motion should be denied because Plaintiffs failed to serve all parties, specifically Defendant City of Redding. Proofs of service by mail of the motion were filed on May 29, 2026, for all parties who have made a general appearance. Generally, all moving and supporting papers are required to be served at least 16 court days before the hearing. This time is extended by 5 days when service is by mail. CCP § 1005. Here, the proofs of service indicate service was made by mail on May 26, 2026, which is untimely for today’s hearing. The Court notes Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended notice of motion, and the proofs of service for the amended motion also indicate service was untimely.
Additionally, Defendants raise that Plaintiffs failed to file a separate statement in compliance with CRC 3.1345. Any motion involving the content of a discovery request must be accompanied by a separate statement, including a motion to quash the production of documents. CRC 3.1345. Here, Plaintiffs failed to file a separate statement. In the interests of reaching the merits, the Court will overlook the procedural defects.
Meet and Confer. CCP § 2016.040 requires the filing of a declaration showing facts that a reasonable, good faith attempt was made to informally resolve the issues presented. Defendants raise that Plaintiffs failed to properly meet and confer prior to filing the motion. The Court finds the meet and confer efforts to be sufficient.
Merits. The subpoena at issue seeks all of Plaintiff, Fredrick Phillips’, medical records from UC Davis for the period of January 1, 2015, to present. A party may move for an order quashing a subpoena in its entirety, modifying it or directing compliance.
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?”
CCP § 2017.010. Generally, privileged information is not discoverable. CCP § 2017.010. However, Evid. Code § 996 provides that there is no physicianpatient privilege as to communications relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the patient if the issue is tendered by the patient.
In determining whether one has waived the right of privacy by bringing suit, our Supreme Court has noted that although there may be an implicit partial waiver, the scope of such waiver must be narrowly, rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits by fear of exposure of private activities. An implicit waiver of a party's constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff's claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.
There must be a compelling and opposing state interest justifying the discovery. Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. The scope of any disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed by the least intrusive manner. Davis v. Superior Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.
App. 4th 1008, 1014.
Here, Plaintiff’s causes of action are factually predicated on his diagnosis of Hemophilia A and his severe chronic joint damage and mobility impairment. Defendants are attempting to subpoena medical records from Plaintiff’s medical provider. Plaintiff has a right of privacy in his medical records. However, by filing the present suit he has waived any right in these records that are directly relevant to whether Plaintiff’s prior existing medical conditions contributed to or caused the subject injuries. The Court has reviewed the scope of the subpoena and finds that it seeks records directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. The Court also finds that there is not a less intrusive means to obtain this information. The request to quash or modify the subpoena is denied.
Sanctions. Defendants have requested sanctions against Plaintiffs based on alleged misuses of the discovery process for failing to meet and confer in good faith and making or opposing motions without substantial justification. CCP § 2023.010(h) & (i). While Defendant has ultimately prevailed in opposing the motion, Plaintiffs have shown that the parties met and conferred on the issues and that there was substantial justification to bring the motion. The request for sanctions is denied.
The motion is DENIED. The request for sanctions is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be modified to conform to the Court’s ruling.
WEBB VS. SIMPSON, ET AL.