DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24616923·sf·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing about 1 year agoGRANTED

ISABELLA SERRANO VS. BENJAMIN FINNESTON ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Deposition Subpoena For Production Of Business Records To Two Chairs And/Or Motion For Protective Order, Request For Sanctions

Hearing date
Jun 17, 2025
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffISABELLA SERRANO
DefendantBENJAMIN FINNESTON

Ruling

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Line 5. 1 - PLAINTIFF ISABELLA SERRANO's Motion To Quash Deposition Subpoena For Production Of Business Records To Two Chairs And/Or Motion For Protective Order, Request For Sanctions.

Plaintiff Isabella Serrano's motion to quash deposition subpoena for production of business records as to Two Chairs is GRANTED. Defendants seek the production of all business and medical records pertaining to Plaintiff's treatment at counseling center, Two Chairs. Plaintiff asserts this request is overbroad and raises the psychotherapist-patient privilege and constitutional privacy interests in response.

Disclosure of a party's mental health records can only be compelled when the party has put their mental condition at issue. (In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415.) "The psychotherapist-patient privilege is a kind of privacy interest that may be overcome only on a showing of a compelling state interest." (Kirchmeyer v. Phillips (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404.) On this record, Plaintiff's garden-variety emotional distress allegations do not justify this discovery. Moreover, Defendants' request is overbroad, in that it seeks "any and all other psychiatric records and materials," not just those relating to her treatment for emotional distress caused by her tenancy. (Wheeler decl. Ex. 1.)

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.

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/JT) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share