| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Monday, August 18, 2025, Line 7. 2 - PLAINTIFF SANDRA PORTER's MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS.
Plaintiff's motion to quash is granted. Although personal injury plaintiffs implicitly waive their right to privacy, the waiver is not unlimited. (Davis v. Superior Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014 (holding that an implicit waiver of the right of privacy will encompass discovery "directly relevant" to the plaintiff's claims).) "[P]laintiffs . . . may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing th[e] lawsuit." (Britt v. Superior Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.)
Here, Leonard's declaration states that the parties agreed to limit discovery to diabetes, sciatica, emotional distress related complaints and symptoms, and gastroparesis. These conditions are directly relevant to Plaintiff's claims, and Plaintiff implicitly waived her right to privacy for those conditions. Defendant argues that limiting the subpoena to only those conditions would hamper their investigation. However, broadening the subpoena to "all" records relating to Plaintiff's medical condition goes far beyond direct relevance. Plaintiff does not need to prove that records relating to nonrelevant medical conditions exist to maintain her right to privacy.
Plaintiff opposes the timeframe of the subpoena. However, the limited period of six months prior to her employment to five months after the end of her disability benefits is a reasonable request and directly relevant to help determine the severity and longevity of Plaintiff's condition before, during, and after her employment.
If defendant issues future subpoenas, the court suggests that the parties continue to meet and confer in good faith (including considering stipulating to a First Look Agreement) prior to coming to court.
Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied. The parties have met and conferred in good faith and there is no indication that this subpoena was an abuse of the discovery process.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/JMT) | |