GRIFFIN vs BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

25CV136230: GRIFFIN vs BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena for Billing Records; filed by Mark Griffin (Plaintiff) CRS# 958235146893 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 08/03/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion to Quash PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS SEEKING PLAINTIFFS BILLING RECORDS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,460.00; DECLARATION OF NORELLE MIRANDA; EXHIBITS filed by Mark Griffin on 07/24/2026 is Denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Quashing Subpoenas Seeking Plaintiff’s Billing Records is DENIED.

Plaintiff alleges he was terminated from employment by Defendant in retaliation for a workrelated injury and accommodation requests. Defendant has served subpoenas on Plaintiff’s medical providers (Kaiser Billing Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Oakland seeking, inter alia, billing records for Plaintiff’s treatment. The subpoena served on Kaiser Billing Northern California is not limited by time; the other subpoena seeks records from January 1, 2017 to the present.

Plaintiff seeks to quash the portions of those subpoenas seeking billing records only; he does not seek to quash the subpoena served on Kaiser Permanente Oakland as it pertains to documents other than billing records. Plaintiff contends that the subpoenas of his billing records invade his constitutional right to privacy. However, Plaintiff does not appear to contend that his medical records themselves are irrelevant to the claims he has put at issue in this case or that production of his medical records violate his constitutional right to privacy.

Plaintiff cites no statutory or case law providing that a patient has a constitutional right to privacy in medical billing records when the patient has put his medical condition at issue and has no valid basis to oppose production of his medical records that generated the billing records. In any event, to the extent that the billing records would show the dates, frequency, providers and descriptions of the medical treatment(s) that Plaintiff has received, they are relevant to Plaintiff’s claimed medical condition, which he has directly put at issue in this case.

Plaintiff further contends that any mental health records evidencing involuntary holds cannot be subpoenaed. But Plaintiff does not expressly state that any such records exist, or that he has ever been subject to an involuntary hold, and he presents no evidence or explanation why any records responsive to the subpoenas at issue would evidence an involuntary hold.

Although this motion is denied, the Court will limit the timeframe of the subpoena propounded on Kaiser Billing Northern California to January 1, 2017 to the present. (See Defendant’s opposition brief, page 8.)