CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Saket Shah in Department 53

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/cross-complainant Alvarado-Gil’s motion to quash plaintiff/cross-defendant Condit’s subpoena for the former’s records from Dr. Shah was continued to this date to permit the parties to meet and confer on the various issues posed by the current motion and to file a joint statement. The Court has received the parties’ joint statement filed on 1/30/2026 and now rules as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of plaintiff Condit’s employment with defendants Alvarado-Gil and the California State Senate. His complaint filed on 9/5/2024 asserts various causes of action for harassment, discrimination, retaliation as well as both injunctive and declaratory relief. On 11/12/2024, a cross-complaint was filed on behalf of defendant Alvarado-Gil and “Committee Alvarado Gil for Senate [sic]”. An amended crosscomplaint was filed on 8/4/2025, asserting against plaintiff Condit causes of action for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion. No trial date has been set.

Moving Papers. Defendant Alvarado-Gil has moved pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1 to quash the entirety of plaintiff Condit’s subpoena for records from Dr. Shah on the grounds that Condit “outrageously seeks to uncover and make public over twenty (20) years of the Senator’s private and personal psychotherapy treatment records” despite not being “relevant for any purpose, as the Senator alleges only garden-variety emotional distress damages which can be proven by the testimony of the Senator herself,” and despite being protected from disclosure by “the Senator [sic] Constitutional rights and statutory privileges.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:4-13.)

Alternatively, the moving papers request the Court to “significantly limit the scope of the subpoena to the relevant timeframe and allow for the Senator’s counsel to conduct a privilege review of the documents and provide a privilege log if any records are withheld.” (Id., at p.2:13- 16.)

Opposition. Plaintiff Condit filed an opposition, arguing first that defendant Alvarado- Gil’s claim of “merely seeking garden variety emotional distress damages” conflicts with her verified discovery responses and her own opposition to Condit’s demurrer to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Saket Shah in Department 53

cross-complaint, in which defendant asserted her “emotional distress was so severe that she was forced to seek therapy.” (Opp., p.1:12-21.) The opposition adds that there is “good cause” for this subpoena because defendant Alvarado-Gil has ‘opened the door’ for this discovery by “putting her emotional health at issue” and this subpoena seeks information that is “undeniably” reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relat[ing] directly to Alvarado-Gil’s claimed injuries and/or damages” and the moving papers fail to establish any valid justification for quashing this subpoena. (Id., at p.1:22-p.2:1.)

Still, plaintiff Condit indicates he is willing to “reduc[e] the time period to ten years without prejudice to seeking additional records if good cause supports it” and also “to enter[] into a protective order to address any concerns over these records.” (Id., at p.2:2-5.)

Legal Standards for Discovery of Medical Records

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2017.010.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v.

Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

While the scope of general discovery is broad, where medical records are sought, the right to privacy in medical records has long been recognized. The right to privacy provided for in Cal. Const., art. I, § 1 may be invoked by a litigant as justification for refusal to answer questions or respond to requests for information that unreasonably intrude on that right. A plaintiff asserting a privacy claim has the burden of establishing each element, specifically: 1. A legally protected privacy interest; 2.

A reasonable expectation of privacy; and 3. A serious invasion of the privacy interest. (See, e.g. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1.) There can be no dispute that the right to privacy encompassed a person's medical information. 'A person's medical profile is an area of privacy infinitely more intimate, more personal in quality and nature than many areas already judicially recognized and protected.' (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 678.) [disapproved by Williams v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Saket Shah in Department 53

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8 only to the extent that the case assumed without conducting the Hill analysis that a compelling need is automatically required when a party seeks discovery of private information].) Rather, '[o]nly obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.' (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 557.)

Furthermore, '[a]lthough in seeking recovery for physical and mental injuries plaintiffs have unquestionably waived their physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges as to all information concerning the medical conditions which they have put in issue such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a patient's past medical history to scrutiny.' (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849, emphasis in original; see also In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 415, 435 [The scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant herself has brought before the court].)

Discussion

According to their joint statement filed on 1/30/2026, the parties have now agreed to the following:

1. Plaintiff will limit the scope of this subpoena to five (5) years; 2. Defendant will complete a “first-look review” of the subpoenaed materials and provide a privilege log for materials withheld from production, if any; 3. The parties shall retain and reserve all rights relating to discovery of additional records beyond the agreed-upon five (5) year period; 4. The parties shall retain and reserve all rights relating to independent medical/mental exams; and 5. Defendant agrees to amend her complaint and discovery responses within thirty (30) days of the filing of this joint statement to remove any language related to “severe” emotional distress and to confirm the scope of damages claimed for mental and/or emotional distress is limited to “garden variety.”

In light of this agreement, the present motion to quash plaintiff/cross-defendant Condit’s subpoena for records from Dr. Shah is DENIED but the alternative motion to modify the subpoena is GRANTED IN PART, consistent with those terms and conditions set forth in the parties’ joint statement filed on 1/30/2026.

The Court appreciates counsel’s efforts to resolve with this matter without the necessity of expending further judicial resources and declines to award any monetary sanctions under the circumstances here.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 02/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records re Dr. Saket Shah in Department 53

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, moving party to prepare a proposed order consistent with the foregoing.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)