Jack B Clarke vs. The Hertz Corporation

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

34-2023-00337069-CU-PO-GDS: Jack B Clarke vs. The Hertz Corporation 03/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jack Clarke, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to quash Defendant The Hertz Corporation’s (“Defendant”) subpoenas for Plaintiff’s records from various medical providers is GRANTED.

This is a personal injury action which arises out of an alleged trip and fall accident that occurred on May 21, 2022. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for personal injury. On October 24, 2023, Defendant issued sixteen (16) subpoenas to Plaintiff’s various medical providers seeking “any and all records for the past 10 years” without limitation to any area of the body.

Plaintiff seeks an order quashing the subpoenas, or in the alternative, for an order requiring in camera inspection. Plaintiff argues all of the requests are overbroad and violate his constitutional privacy rights. Specifically, Plaintiff contends the subpoena should be limited only to the specific part of the body placed at issue in this lawsuit, which he states in the moving papers is his right leg.

Defendant appears to concede that Plaintiff alleges injury to his right leg only. (Declaration of Giuliana Regina, ¶5.) However, Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that (1) the requested records may disclose potentially contributing symptoms, conditions and/or issues and (2) the motion is procedurally deficient because Plaintiff combines his requests for relief into a single motion.

The motion is granted because the subpoenas are overly broad. Again, as stated, the subpoenas seek “any and all records for the past 10 years,” without any substantive limitation whatsoever, and also appear to arbitrarily select a 10-year period. These requests clearly threaten disclosure of private medical information of no apparent relevance, much less direct relevance, to the action. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849, 862-864 [plaintiffs suing for physical injuries waive physician-patient privilege and privacy rights only as to medical conditions in question].) “When the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery. [Citations.]” (Tylo v.

Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387.) Discovery may be compelled upon a showing of a compelling public interest. (Ibid.) A compelling public interest is demonstrated only where the material sought is directly relevant to the litigation. (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 858-859.) The party seeking discovery of constitutionally protected information has

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337069-CU-PO-GDS: Jack B Clarke vs. The Hertz Corporation 03/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 53

the burden of establishing that the information sought is directly relevant to the claims and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425, 1431-1432.)

Defendant has failed to meet its burden of showing that the information requested is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Defendant contends that other conditions, such as an orthopedic injury to Plaintiff’s left leg, history of falls, ataxia, diabetes, dizziness, vertigo, or ocular migraines could have contributed to the alleged fall. However, Defendant fails to provide evidence showing that Plaintiff has suffered any of these conditions and fails to explain how disclosure of Plaintiff’s entire medical records, which may or not disclose evidence of these conditions, is directly relevant to its defenses. Mere speculation that something else may have contributed to the fall does not defeat Plaintiff's right to privacy. Plaintiff has not placed his entire physical condition at issue, as Defendant suggests.

Because Defendant has not agreed to withdraw the subpoenas, they are clearly subject to being quashed. Further, given that Defendant did not agree to limit the documents requested, the Court declines to attempt to modify the subpoena. Additionally, Plaintiff’s alternative request for in camera inspection is moot, nor would it be proper in this instance.

With respect to Defendant’s argument that the motion is procedurally deficient, it is unclear on what basis Defendant contends Plaintiff was required to file sixteen (16) separate motions. Defendant cites only Government Code section 70617, which outlines filing fees for various motions. Defendant provides no legal authority in support of its argument, nor does the Court find any necessity for Plaintiff to burden the Court with sixteen near identical motions.

Disposition

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is GRANTED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Moving Party’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving Party’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Moving Party’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Moving Party’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337069-CU-PO-GDS: Jack B Clarke vs. The Hertz Corporation 03/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 53

person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Moving Party has not stated an address for Department 53 in its notice of motion. The correct address for Departments 53 and 54 (Law and Motion) of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Moving Party shall notify responding party(ies) immediately.