Jane Roe T.B. v. Unknown

Plaintiff's claimed physical injuries that support her disability claim. Defendant does not dispute this in opposition. The ordinary purpose of discovering medical records is to disprove the allegation that the medical injuries occurred and/or are as bad as the plaintiff contends, or to show that they did occur but were due to some other cause. Most of the law in this regard has developed in the context of personal injury claims, which are not at issue here.

Plaintiff herein is alleging disability discrimination, and if Defendant concedes the existence of the underlying conditions at issue in the lawsuit, it is unclear how the medical records could aid Defendant in its defense of the lawsuit. Defendant's opposition centers on Plaintiff's recent amendment to her complaint, pursuant to which she seeks to recover emotional distress damages. Defendant's subpoenas, however, are not propounded on mental health providers. It seems Defendant is hoping to discover that Plaintiff had additional medical conditions, other than those that form the basis of her disability claim, that it can argue caused or contributed to her emotional distress damages. This is, however, far too attenuated to permit Defendant to overcome the Constitutional right to privacy in Plaintiff's own medical records.

Defendant cites no authority permitting discovery of ten years' worth of primary, urgent, and orthopaedic medical records in order to determine a possible alternative source of claimed emotional distress. Defendant has the burden, once Plaintiff makes a privacy objection, to show heightened good cause for production of the subject records. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4 th 1, 31. Defendant has not met that burden, and the motions to quash are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Crystle Caigoy and Simona Danesh of Slater Slater Schulman LLP seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Jane Roe T.B., declaring there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship such that further representation is not possible. Counsel declares Client's address was confirmed by telephone in the past month, and has filed proof of service on Client and all parties who have appeared in the action. There is no timely opposition to the motion. Trial is not scheduled until 12/07/26 and therefore there will be no prejudice to Client as a result of the granting of the motion. Notably, the same attorneys were relieved from their representation of Co-Plaintiff, Jane Doe P.W., on 7/28/26. The motion is granted; relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Client. Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV01093 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: S27 1.

Background

Facts Plaintiff, Ibrahim Arno filed this action against Defendants, Ocean Breeze Apartments, LLC, Excel Residential Services, Inc., Southern California Gas Company, and Hansa Investments, Inc. for breach of the warranty of habitability, premises liability, IIED, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, private nuisance and negligence. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff filed on 5/12/26. The majority of the claims in the complaint are made against Plaintiff's landlord, and encompass a wide variety of habitability and other claims. As