Christopher Bariana, D.O. v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. d/b/a Tampa General Hospital, et al.

The Motion came on for hearing on May 15, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.

Undisputed Facts

On September 16, 2025, Intuitive was served with the Subpoena issued by the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida (the “Florida Action”). Declaration of Dennis Daniels in Support of Motion (“Daniels Decl. ”) at ¶ 3 & Ex. 1 thereto (filed: Oct. 2, 2025).

Intuitive is not a party to the Florida Action where the Subpoena was issued. Daniels Decl. at ¶ 4. Intuitive is not a Florida resident; Intuitive is a California resident. Id. at ¶ 6.

The Subpoena seeks the production of private and confidential information of seven Florida surgeons. Id. at ¶ 6.

The private and confidential information sought from these seven Florida surgeons can be obtained by Tampa General directly from the surgeons themselves. Id. at ¶ 6.

Obtaining the private and confidential information directly from the Florida surgeons for use in the Florida Action would be more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive for Intuitive, which is a nonparty to the Florida Action and a Cal ifornia resident. Id. at ¶ 6.

32 Obtaining the documents sought directly from the Florida surgeons would give Florida surgeons an opportunity to raise objections to production of their private and confidential information before the Florida Court where the Florida Action is pending. Id. at ¶ 6.

This Court finds that all of the above facts are undisputed in this case bec ause Tampa General —the issuing party of the Subpoena —has not opposed the Motion and thus has not disputed any facts set forth in the Motion or in its Supporting Declaration. Under California Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).

All of the above facts being both undisputed and well supported by the sworn Declaration in Support of the Motion of Dennis Daniels, this Court thereby finds and ru les that the above facts are all true, including that:

1. The discovery sought by the Subpoena is obtainable from some other source — i.e., directly from the doctors themselves rather than Intuitive —that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; and

2. The selected method of discovery sought by the Subpoena from Intuitive is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into the accounts the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the underlying litigation.

Analysis of Motion to Quash

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.030 states in mandatory terms that this Court “shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method . . . if it determines either of the following:

1. The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

2. The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into the accounts the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the underlying litigation. ”

C.C.P. 2019.030(a)(1)&(2) (emphasis added). Likewise, the Court “good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense ” in responding to discovery demands for production of documents, including “[t]hat all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all.” C.C.P. § 2031.060(b)(1) (emphasis added).

33 In this case, having found as undisputed facts that —

1. The discovery sought by the Subpoena is obtainable from some other source — i.e., directly from the doctors themselves rather than Intuitive —that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; and

2. The selected method of discovery sought by the Subpoena from Intuitive is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into the accounts the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the underlying litigation;

—the Court by authority of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2019.030(a)(1) & (2) a nd 2031.060(b)(1) hereby QUASHES the Subpoena and ORDERS that Intuitive need not respond at all to the Subpoena. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

Conclusion & Order

Being well supported by the undisputed facts and governing law set forth abov e, Intuitive’s Motion is GRANTED in all respects. Specifically, the Court ORDERS that the Subpoena is QUASHED and that Intuitive is protected from producing any of the information sought by the quashed Subpoena.

SO ORDERED.

Date: May 15, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara