Vangelos vs. Mehta

devoid of merit”].) Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion relied on ample authorities that actions by a homeowners’ association can in fact constitute protected activity; that the court disagreed and found to the contrary, does not render the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous.

Defendant shall give notice.

4. Vangelos vs. Mehta Motion for Sanctions

25-01520113 OFF CALENDAR

5. Garcia vs. La Habra Motion to Quash Subpoena City School District Plaintiff Agustin Garcia’s motion to quash the records subpoena 25- 01535218 issued to nonparty deponent Providence St. Jude Medical Center is GRANTED. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

This motion concerns the records subpoena issued by defendant La Habra City School District (defendant or District) to nonparty deponent Providence St. Jude Medical Center on 5/14/26, seeking any and all records pertaining to plaintiff without any limitation as to body part, medical condition, or subject matter, from 1/1/15 to the present. (Allton Decl. at Ex. A [subject subpoena].)

Plaintiff’s right to privacy in his medical and financial records is well established in law. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 841 (Vinson) [medical records]; Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014 (Davis) [medical records]; Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550 [financial information].)

Disclosure may be ordered when the information is directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit, and where the need for disclosure outweighs privacy concerns. “The scope of any disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed by the least intrusive manner. [Citation.]” (Davis, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014; see Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [framework for determination of privacy objection]; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 (Hill) [same]; see also Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1251 [harmonizing privacy analysis in pre and post-Hill decisions].) The party seeking disclosure of the constitutionally protected information bears the burden of establishing direct relevance. (Davis, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017.)