Chad Leaf v. Matthew Caplan, et al

Plaintiff Chad Leaf filed a motion for an order quashing the deposition subpoenas served on Leslee Leaf, William Callicott, and Charlsey Kellen. The motion also seeks sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $2,560.00, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 and 1987.2.

Plaintiff argues the subpoenas for Mr. Leaf's medical and mental health records seek irrelevant and immaterial personal records that invade the privacy of plaintiff, and seek private medical information that is not directly relevant to Mr. Leaf's claims or Defendants’ defenses. Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are overbroad and seek medical records without limitation as to a time period without any association with the injuries related to the dog attack, alleged in the complaint.

Defendants’ seek this information based on information provided by Chanel Caplan, who is the plaintiff’s sister. Defendants claim that Mr. Leaf has a long history of mental illness, largely untreated, and a number of traumatic and stressful incidents he experienced in the weeks leading up to the incident that is the subject of this lawsuit.

Defendants’ seek: • Documents and communications related to the death of Mr. Leaf’s dog weeks before the incident. Request for Doc 2. • Documents related to and arrest in January 2025 for attempted child abduction and related interactions with law enforcement. Request for Doc 3, 4. • Documents related to Mr. Leaf’s mental health and mental health history, which is directly relevant to his claimed damages. Request for Doc 5-9. The request for medical records have no limitation as to time.

Plaintiff argues that there must be a compelling need for discovery. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 858-64.) The scope of any such discovery must be drawn with narrow specificity to include only the injuries which the plaintiff himself has brought before the court. (Id. at 863-64.) Seeking “information related to all past medical conditions, without regard to whether such conditions have any bearing on the present litigation” is overbroad and impermissible. (Id. at 862.) California law prohibits Defendant from engaging in a “fishing expedition” into “other possible alternative sources” of emotional distress simply because Plaintiff filed a lawsuit. (Tylo v. Superior Court) (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1388.

Defendants’ demand to access to Plaintiff’s mental health records, without limitation as to scope and time is overboard as to Doc request 2, 5-9. Objections to document requests 3-4 are sustained, because those inquiries seek impermissible private and irrelevant information.