DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al.

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Sacramento County Sheriff's Office in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7848

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to quash or modify the deposition subpoena directed to Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office by defendants Rachandeep Singh (“Dr. Singh”) and Access Physician, Inc. (“API”) is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises out of an alleged sexual assault that occurred on April 26, 2023, by Dr. Singh against Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 22, 2023, against Dr. Singh, his company API, and the facility he directed, RiverPointe (a skilled nursing facility), alleging causes of action for: (1) assault, (2) sexual battery, (3) battery, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) sexual harassment, (6) negligent hiring and supervision, and (7) sex discrimination. Plaintiff alleges she was employed by RiverPointe and that on the date of the assault, she had just returned to work from vacation in Mexico and was experiencing abdominal pain and nausea. Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Singh offered to prescribe her an antibiotic, but stated that he needed to physically examine her first. During the examination, Dr. Singh allegedly began to grope

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Sacramento County Sheriff's Office in Department 16C

Plaintiff’s breasts and attempted to have sexual intercourse with Plaintiff. Plaintiff pushed Dr. Singh away and escaped to a nearby closet.

In September of 2025, Defendants issued the at-issue subpoena to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, which seeks:

“All PAPER OR ELECTRONICALLY STORED DOCUMENTS, REPORTS AND INVESTIGATORY MATERIALS, including witness statements, audio recordings, photographs, video recordings, or other materials related to [Plaintiff] excluding materials related to report no. 23-126876;

ALL PAPER OR ELECTRONICALLY STORED DOCUMENTS, REPORTS AND INVESTIGATORY MATERIALS related to 911 calls or other communications or contacts involving [Plaintiff], including dispatch records to [two residential addresses associated with Plaintiff], including reports related to claims of domestic violence or disturbances, assault, and personal injury.”

(Declaration of Alexandra Darling (“Darling Decl.”), ¶ 14, Ex. H.)

The referenced report, number 23-126876, is the police report pertaining to Plaintiff’s alleged sexual assault by Dr. Singh. (Darling Decl., ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena on the grounds it is overbroad, not limited in scope or time in any manner, and violates her privacy rights. Plaintiff argues the subpoena seeks all police reports involving her except for the single report that is directly relevant to this action. Plaintiff insists there is no conceivable connection between all police documents that reference her and Plaintiff’s claim of sexual assault against Dr. Singh.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, the “court, upon motion reasonably made, by the party...may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such 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 parties, the witness, the consumer, or the employee from unreasonable demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the witness, consumer, or employee.”

The right of privacy is an “inalienable right” secured by Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Super Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.) However, the right to privacy is not absolute - the right to privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation against a serious invasion. (See, e.g. Hill v. National

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Sacramento County Sheriff's Office in Department 16C

Collegiate Athletic Ass'n. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40.) In determining whether disclosure of private personal information is required, the court must engage in a balancing of the right of a civil litigant to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, and the right of the third parties to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their sensitive personal affairs, on the other. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

The California Supreme Court has decided the analytical framework for assessing a privacy claim: (1) there must be a specific legally-protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy must exist; and (3) the invasion of the privacy interest must be serious. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 39-40.)

As to items protected by the right to privacy, the threshold requirement is that such items must be “directly relevant” to the issue in the case. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844; Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379.) Yet, even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a “careful balancing” of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525.)

Defendants posit that the subpoena does not constitute a serious invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy because arrest records are not private and must be disclosed pursuant to Government Code section 7923.610. Even accepting this point, the subpoena is not limited to documents regarding Plaintiff’s arrest records. The subpoena is expansive and seeks all police documents, reports, and investigatory material that pertain to Plaintiff from any point in time. This goes far beyond just those documents that evidence Plaintiff was arrested. Plaintiff also points out on reply that because the subpoena seeks documents where Plaintiff may have been the victim of a sex crime, such records may not be publicly disclosed pursuant to Penal Code section 293.

Given the broad language, the Court finds the subpoena implicates Plaintiff’s right to privacy and constitutes a serious invasion. There is also the potential that the records would implicate the private information of third parties, which Defendants do not address in their opposition. Thus, Defendants must demonstrate a compelling need for all of Plaintiff’s police records by showing the records are directly relevant.

Defendants assert that “[d]etails of any prior sexual assaults, physical assaults, incidents of domestic violence and/or similar traumatic events are discoverable for the same purpose defendants have sought and obtained orders from this court allowing discovery of prior sexual assaults.” (Opposition at 11:9 -11.) Defendants posit that such evidence, as attested to by Dr. Amyanne C. Freeburg in support of Defendants’ prior discovery motions, is relevant to evaluate Plaintiff’s emotional distress damages.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Sacramento County Sheriff's Office in Department 16C

Defendants assert that currently, “little is known about the details of the alleged physical assaults, sexual assaults and incidents of domestic violence for which plaintiff was assessed as having depression, anxiety and PTSD prior to the time of the subject incident.” (Opposition at 11:21-23.)

On reply, Plaintiff contends Defendants have not complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220, which requires the party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator must establish good cause for that discovery via a noticed motion. Plaintiff also explains that while Defendants previously filed a section 2017.220 motion in early 2025, the Court only granted the motion to permit discovery regarding two prior sexual assaults that Plaintiff disclosed to her co-workers and law enforcement and did not grant leave to conduct discovery related to any other instances of misconduct. (05/06/2025, Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Obtain Discovery).)

The Court agrees that Defendants’ subpoena, if permitted, would operate as a circumvention of the requirements of section 2017.220, which Defendants have not yet complied with in regards to discovery concerning all of Plaintiff’s sexual assaults and incidents of domestic violence. The Court made clear in its May 6, 2025, Minute Order that it was limited to the two listed instances of prior sexual assaults.

The Court also agrees that Plaintiff has tendered part of the records sought through this action wherein she seeks emotional distress damages arising from the alleged sexual assault, and there is no dispute that Plaintiff has disclosed during discovery prior instances of physical and sexual assaults and domestic violence, which could affect her baseline mental health and evidence preexisting emotional distress. However, the subpoena is not limited to documents, reports, or investigatory material related to physical and sexual assault and/or domestic violence.

It is open-ended as to the type of incident for which a police document or report could have been generated. For example, as currently drafted, the subpoena would include any documents related to any infraction whatsoever that involved Plaintiff, ranging from a DUI to petty theft, neither of which is relevant whatsoever to the allegation that Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Dr. Singh. The subpoena would also encompass any instances where Plaintiff may have been a witness to a completely unrelated crime or incident.

Defendants have not pointed to any evidence, such as Plaintiff's discovery responses, showing that Plaintiff has placed the entirety of any police record involving her in any way at issue. To the extent Defendants argue that the records are discoverable to test Plaintiff’s credibility regarding the claimed physical and sexual assault and domestic violence incidents, this argument is rejected for the same reason and because Defendants have not obtained leave pursuant to section 2017.220.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Sacramento County Sheriff's Office in Department 16C

While Defendants claim that Plaintiff has issued similarly broad subpoenas regarding Dr. Singh to the Stockton Police Department, Plaintiff’s issuance of subpoenas regarding Dr. Singh are not relevant to the Court’s inquiry on this motion to quash.

A subpoena seeking any police documents, records, and investigatory material pertaining to Plaintiff is overbroad and beyond the scope of permissible discovery in this action. Defendants fail to establish how such records are directly relevant to the issues in this action. Therefore, the motion to quash is GRANTED without prejudice to Defendant issuing an appropriately tailored subpoena.

The Court declines the Defendants' request to issue a protective order or to modify the subpoena.

The Court need not rule on Defendants’ objections to the Declaration of Christopher Mouzis because the evidence was not material to the Court’s decision.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendants is DENIED. Plaintiff sent a meet and confer email the day before the deadline to file this motion. Although the parties also spoke on the phone on that same day, the timing of the meet and confer does not reflect a good faith intention to try to reach an agreement.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is also DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Sacramento County Sheriff's Office in Department 16C

parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.