Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records and Request for Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING FOR MAY 14, 2026 Department R12 - Judge Kory Mathewson Andres Cerrillo v. Alec Anthony Rosales – CIVRS2505389 Motion: Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records and Request for Sanctions Movant: Plaintiff Andres Cerrillo Respondent: Defendant Alec Anthony Rosales RULING: Plaintiff’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena to Health Net of California, Inc. is GRANTED IN PART, and LIMITED to documents from July 29, 2023 to the present that identify medical providers Plaintiff has seen relating to the following: neck, back, spine, head, shoulders, chest/abdomen, left arm and leg, right arm, neurological symptoms, dizziness, headaches, and sleep difficulties/insomnia.
Billing records are LIMITED to those medical providers, on or after July 29, 2023, identified in the documents produced. Request for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff - to provide Order(s) and give Notice. ______________________________________________________________________________
Right of Privacy Related to Medical Information In considering the Hill factors in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552., citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 (Hill). Plaintiff has a bona fide interest in the confidentiality of his medical information. In general, an individual’s right to privacy to information in medical records is “well settled.” (Grafilo v. Wolfsohn (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1034; see also County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621, 641.)
Nonetheless, a party waives any privacy interest as to the claims asserted in litigation. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 (Vison) (“[A]n 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.”);
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?”
Rosales’ subpoena seeks: • Only those records from July 29, 2013, to the present that identify the medical providers seen by ANDRES CERRILLO DOB: [...], Member ID No. [...], including spreadsheets, health insurance claims forms, authorizations and referrals.” The request “also includes production of billing records, including amounts paid, adjusted, and/or written off for medical services provided to ANDRES CERRILLO DOB: [...] from July 29, 2023, to present.
The subpoena is not limited to the medical providers that have treated Plaintiff for the areas of his body that are at issue or to the billing associated with Plaintiff’s treatment following the
accident. The subpoena requires the production of documents revealing medical and billing information that is not relevant to any matter at issue and invades Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
If Rosales seeks the names of Plaintiff’s treating medical providers, it is unclear why he has not propounded an interrogatory to that effect.
Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to quash in part, and modifies the subpoena to require only the production of documents identifying medical providers that Plaintiff has seen relating to his neck, back, spine, head, shoulders, chest/abdomen, left arm and leg, right arm, head and brain, and to issues relating to headaches, and sleep difficulties/insomnia. Billing records should be limited to those related to injuries sustained in the accident. As such, billing records should be on or after July 29, 2023, and only as to the medical providers identified in the produced documents.
Sanctions Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,435.00. Sanctions are discretionary for this type of motion and under the circumstances are not warranted.
Dated: May 14, 2026
____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson
2