Farshid Moossazadeh vs. Avanti Hospitals LLC, et al.

(Alhambra Courthouse: Dept. T) August 21, 2026 DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Moossazadeh vs. Avanti Hospitals LLC, et al. Motion to Quash Subpoenas Moving Party: Plaintiff Farshid Moossazadeh Responding Party: Defendant Gardena Hospital LP dba Memorial Hospital of Gardena Tentative Ruling: Grant

BACKGROUND

This is a negligence and premises liability action. On May 18, 2026, Defendant Gardena Hospital LP dba Memorial Hospital of Gardena ("Defendant") issued six deposition subpoenas for the production of business records to Plaintiff Farshid Moossazadeh's ("Plaintiff") nonparty medical providers. Plaintiff now moves to quash these subpoenas. Defendant opposes. No reply was filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are overbroad, seek irrelevant documents, and invade Plaintiff's right to privacy, as the requests are not narrowly tailored to avoid disclosure of unrelated private information that is constitutionally protected.

OPPOSITION

Defendant responds that Plaintiff received care for all of the complaints that Defendant is seeking to discover information related to existence and nature of these complaints to the extent that they preexisted the subject incident, as evidenced by the exhibited deposition testimony.

REPLY

No reply was filed.

ANALYSIS

I.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides as follows: If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1987.1, subd. (a).)

A motion under this section may be filed by any of several categories of interested persons, including a party. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1987.1, subd. (b).) California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides that "the court may in its discretion award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing [a motion to quash], including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive." (Code Civ. Proc. section 1987.2(a).)

II.

Discussion

Here, "Plaintiff contends the incident caused significant head, brain, cervical spine, visual, and neurological injuries, resulting in ongoing cognitive deficits, headaches, dizziness, neck pain, vision complaints, and loss of earning capacity." (Mot., at p. 1.) Furthermore, Plaintiff states in his motion that, in response to Defendant's form interrogatories, he identified the following as areas to which his suffered injuries related to this action, "Injuries to head/brain; Injuries to eyes; Injuries to neck; Injuries to back; Injuries to shoulders; Irritability; Anomic aphasia; Slurred speech; Depression; Insomnia; and Balance impairments." (Id., at p. 5.)

In an attempt to discover evidence concerning the nature and extent of these complaints insofar as they preexisted the subject incident, Defendant issued deposition subpoenas for the production of business records to nonparty providers Rodney Bluestone Medical Corporation, Advanced Medical Analysis, LLC Bluestone, C-Ton Laboratory, Torrance Advanced Imaging, Torrance Advanced Imaging - Billing, and LAX Pharmacy. (Gauthier Decl. P. 1, Exh. A.)

Given the nature of Plaintiff's claimed injuries and the scope of Defendant's requests, the Court finds that each of the subpoenas are facially overbroad as to the specified period of time for the requested documents and information sought by Defendant. (See Gauthier Decl. P. 1, Exh. A.) Although it appears that Plaintiff's medical history concerning the scope and nature of certain of these ailments predate 2011, the temporal scope of the subpoenas is unreasonable invasive on his right to privacy in medical information that has no bearing on the issue of damages.

Thus, the motion to quash is granted.

RULING

Plaintiff Farshid Moossazadeh's Motion to Quash Subpoenas is GRANTED. The Court encourages the parties to meet and confer regarding the reasonable scope of the subpoenas prior to the issuance of new subpoenas to these same providers.

Case Number: 25NNCV05644 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: T Greenoak Investments LLC, a California Limited Liability Company vs. Aveson, a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation, et al. Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Moving Party: Defendant Aveson, a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation Responding Party: Plaintiff Greenoak Investments LLC, a California Limited Liability Tentative Ruling: Sustain

BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2025, Plaintiff Greenoak Investments LLC, a California Limited Liability ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendants Aveson, a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation ("Aveson"), Ian McFeat ("McFeat"), and Does 1 through 25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) deceit; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) fraudulent business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200); and (6) express indemnification.

On March 13, 2026, the Court sustained in part the demurrer to the deceit cause of action with leave to amend. On April 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint ("FAC") against the same defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; and (2) deceit (misrepresentation).

The following facts are alleged in the FAC. Aveson operates a charter school. On or about January 7, 2025, Aveson lost its school campus in the Eaton Fire. Plaintiff, through its agent Excel Property Management Services Inc., reached out to McFeat, who was then the superintendent, executive director, and CEO of Aveson, and offered Aveson use of Plaintiff's building located at 530-532 East Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena, California 91101, to serve as a temporary satellite location for the school. (FAC P. 10.)

On or about February 7, 2025, following Aveson's review of the Property and negotiations between the parties, Aveson and Plaintiff entered into a license agreement for the Property's use by Aveson (the "License Agreement"). The License Agreement required Aveson to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy ("TCO") from the City of Pasadena,