POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al.

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute Hipaa Authorization for Disclosure of Psychiatric Records or To Compel Plaintiff to Obtain and Produce the Requested Documents in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

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 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 8C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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.

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute Hipaa Authorization for Disclosure of Psychiatric Records or To Compel Plaintiff to Obtain and Produce the Requested Documents in Department 8C

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant Avtar Singh Sandhar’s (“Defendant”) motion for an order compelling Plaintiff Yara Posada (“Plaintiff”) to execute a HIPAA-compliant authorization for Plaintiff’s medical records or, alternatively, compelling Plaintiff to obtain the records and produce them to Defendant, is ruled upon as follows.

Background

This is a personal injury action arising from an alleged rear-end motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 3, 2021. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 24, 2023.

In her written discovery responses and deposition testimony, Plaintiff described a suicide attempt that occurred one-to-two months after the collision, which Plaintiff asserts stemmed from a lack of improvement of her physical injuries from the collision. Additionally, during discovery, Plaintiff produced medical records from Kaiser Behavioral Health for psychiatric treatment following the collision. The records reflect that Plaintiff had experienced psychological issues for several years before the collision due to physical and sexual abuse as well as drug addiction. The records also reflect, and Plaintiff disclosed in her discovery responses, that she had previously attempted suicide, including three weeks before the subject collision. Additionally, Plaintiff attributes a traumatic brain injury and development of a mood disorder to the subject collision.

Based on this information, “Defendant has attempted to obtain further records including the full psychiatric records as well as any that pre-date the subject incident.” (Vandersluys Decl., ¶ 9.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute Hipaa Authorization for Disclosure of Psychiatric Records or To Compel Plaintiff to Obtain and Produce the Requested Documents in Department 8C

The precise efforts Defendant made to obtain these records is not clear, but Defendant contends that Kaiser has refused to release psychiatric records without a signed authorization from Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant has asked Plaintiff to provide a signed authorization, but Plaintiff has not agreed to do so at this time. More recently, the parties met and conferred on the issue, and Plaintiff offered to provide her psychiatric records from six months before the collision, while Defendant sought “a larger period of production to at least five years prior to the incident.” (Vandersluys Decl., ¶ 10.)

Via this motion, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to execute an authorization for the production of Plaintiff’s mental health treatment records from Kaiser. Defense counsel indicates that the authorization is attached as Exhibit P to the Declaration of Marissa L. Vandersluys. (Vandersluys Decl., ¶ 11.) However, Exhibit P consists of a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel dated April 14, 2026 regarding mental examinations to which Defendant request Plaintiff submit. Unexecuted authorizations are included as enclosures to exhibits consisting of correspondence. (See Vandersluys Decl., Exhs.

H and I.) The authorizations are prefilled and indicate that Defendant seeks all medical records, diagnostic images, and itemized billing records for Plaintiff’s mental health treatment with Kaiser, with no time limitation. Since no other authorizations are included with the moving papers, and since Defendant’s motion does not indicate otherwise, the Court assumes that the motion seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to execute an authorization allowing for Kaiser to produce records in this manner and scope as indicated in the authorizations included in Exhibits H and I.

Alternatively, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to obtain the documents herself and produce them to Defendant.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that there is no authority for the remedy Defendant seeks, and that Defendant must subpoena Kaiser for the records and move to compel Kaiser’s compliance if necessary. Plaintiff also argues that the records sought are privileged and contain information protected by Plaintiff’s right of privacy, and that the scope of Defendant’s demand is overbroad. Regarding Defendant’s alternative request to compel Plaintiff to obtain and produce the records, Plaintiff asserts that the motion is procedurally improper under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.

Discussion

Defendant’s motion does not include any authority supporting the remedy of an order compelling a party to execute a medical authorization. However, in one case, which also involved Kaiser and its requirement of a signed authorization by the patient in response to a subpoena, the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s order dismissing a plaintiff’s case through a motion for terminating sanctions after the plaintiff refused to comply with a court order to execute authorizations following the grant of a motion to compel. (See generally Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913.[1]) While Miranda may be read as implicit approval of a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute Hipaa Authorization for Disclosure of Psychiatric Records or To Compel Plaintiff to Obtain and Produce the Requested Documents in Department 8C

motion to compel a plaintiff to sign an authorization to release medical records, that precise issue was not before the Court of Appeal. Instead, the issues were whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the discovery dispute and personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff since the matter was in arbitration, and whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case. On the latter issue, the court’s primary basis for affirming was that substantial evidence showed that the plaintiff had willfully disobeyed the trial court’s order compelling execution of the authorizations and had no intention of obeying in the future. (Id. at p. 929.) The propriety of the underlying order was not specifically addressed. Notably, in its summary of the factual and procedural background, the court noted:

The record does not reflect the reason the medical facilities requested plaintiff’s authorization. Perhaps defendant did not comply with the procedures to obtain “personal records” of a “consumer” as required by section 1985.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which case the medical facilities had a sufficient basis to refuse compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (k).) If section 1985.3 had been complied with, the record does not indicate why defendant did not simply move to compel compliance with the subpoena pursuant to section 1987.1, instead of pursuing an unwilling plaintiff for a signed authorization. These matters remain mysteries because of the scant record presented to the trial court.

(Miranda, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 918, fn. 2.)

Thus, the Court of Appeal expressed some confusion over the procedural posture of the case. The court also indicated that Kaiser’s refusal to comply with a statutorily proper subpoena without a signed authorization from the patient was inappropriate. Similarly, here, the record before the Court regarding Kaiser’s demand for a signed authorization is scant. The only evidence on this topic is a general statement in defense counsel’s declaration that “Kaiser will not release the records without a signed authorization.” (Vandersluys Decl., ¶ 9.)

There is no evidence that a subpoena was served and no information provided on the nature of the communication between Defendant and Kaiser. Nor does Defendant explain why he could not move to compel Kaiser to produce the records in response to a properly issued and served subpoena. There is clear statutory authority for the procedure. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985.3, 1987.1, and 2025.480.) Meanwhile, the authority permitting a party to move to compel another party to execute a medical records authorization is indirect and unclear.

Given Defendant’s lack of explanation in the moving papers as to why he could not obtain the records via subpoena, the Court finds that it would be more appropriate for Defendant to seek production of the records via the statutorily authorized subpoena process.

As for Defendant’s alternative request for an order compelling Plaintiff to obtain and produce the records, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the request is procedurally improper. Defendant cites

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute Hipaa Authorization for Disclosure of Psychiatric Records or To Compel Plaintiff to Obtain and Produce the Requested Documents in Department 8C

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which governs the basic requirements of responses to requests for production of documents, and section 2031.300, which governs a motion to compel responses where no responses are served. Here, Plaintiff served responses. (See Vandersluys Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6, Exh. D.) To the extent Defendant moves to compel further responses under section 2031.310, the motion is untimely, as Plaintiff verified her responses on February 2, 2024. To the extent Defendant moves to compel compliance under section 2031.320, Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff failed to produce documents in accordance with her statement of compliance.

Disposition

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

The Court expresses no opinion on the appropriate duration or scope of the records sought, or the discoverability of any of Plaintiff’s mental health records, including the extent to which any such records are privileged or exempt from production on the basis of Plaintiff’s right of privacy.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.) [1] Defendant does not cite Miranda in his moving papers.