Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co.

According to defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel did not assuage their concerns and so they rejected the proposal. (Wild Decl. ¶ 23.) Defendants then offered to

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 06/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 54

consider a protective order, which Plaintiff rejected. (Wild Decl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff contends Defendants insisted they are entitled to the documents without redactions. (Fareed Decl. ¶¶ 11- 12.)

On reply, Plaintiff notes that in opposition Defendants assert that Plaintiff would not remove any redactions or modify the privilege log. However, Plaintiff notes that Defendants never asked Plaintiff to revisit the redactions or revise the privilege log during the meet-and-confer process. (Amended Declaration of Attorney Sam Fareed (“Fareed Amended Decl.”) ¶ 13.)

After the parties were unable to reach an agreement, Defendants issued a second deposition subpoena to Kaiser with the same request, which is the subpoena Plaintiff seeks to quash by this motion. After receiving the second subpoena, Plaintiff renewed the offer for Ms. Wild to review the unredacted records and offered to re-review the redactions and privilege log. (Fareed Decl. ¶ 14.) Defendants refused the offers and again suggested a protective order. (Wild Decl. ¶ 28, Exh. 16.) Plaintiff ignored the offer and filed this motion. (Wild Decl. ¶ 29.)

The subpoena seeks:

“All medical records including inpatient, outpatient and emergency room treatment. All clinical charts, reports, including radiology reports and pathology reports, documents, correspondence, test results, statements, questionnaires/histories, and records received from other physicians. Please be sure to include all archived records and all records located in storage relating to the hiring of Monica Torres-Mendoza, DOB: 03/09/1995. Medical Record No. 110010272686. From 06/01/2016 to Present.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, the “court, upon motion reasonably made, by the party...may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the parties, the witness, the consumer, or the employee from unreasonable demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the witness, consumer, or employee.”

There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s medical records are protected by the right to privacy. The right to privacy exists in one's medical records, financial records, and other private personal records. (Binder vs. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 893, 901 (medical records are the type of information which is protected by the right of privacy; the first question is whether the private information sought to be discovered is directly relevant to the issues of the instant litigation.) Nonetheless, such right is not absolute and private information may be subject to discovery where the party seeking such discovery demonstrates a compelling need for the information and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through less intrusive means of discovery such as depositions. (Board of Trustees v.

Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525-526; disapproved by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 only to the extent

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 06/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 54

that the case assumed, without conducting the Hill analysis, that a compelling need is automatically required when a party seeks discovery of private information.) Where it is argued that a party has waived the protection, the Court must construe the concept of waiver narrowly and the requisite “compelling public interest” is demonstrated only where the material sought is directly relevant to the litigation. Such waiver extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a patient’s past medical history to scrutiny. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 858-859.)

A party does not sacrifice all privacy rights when it puts a specific medical condition at issue. (Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d. at 863-864 [citations omitted].) “As Lifschutz explains, plaintiffs are 'not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury'; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past. The trial court thus obviously erred in ordering plaintiffs to disclose to defendant their entire lifetime medical histories and this aspect of the challenged discovery order must also be vacated.” (Id. at 864.)

Plaintiff contends she has alleged that the collision caused injuries to her head, back, and neck, but has not placed at issue her entire medical history as sought by the Subpoena.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s medical records are discoverable because her discovery responses regarding her alleged injuries are not limited to her head, back, and neck. Specifically, in response to Defendants’ Form Interrogatory number 6.2, Plaintiff stated:

“The Plaintiff suffered several injuries, all of which are detailed in his [sic] medical records. The Plaintiff will provide a summarized list of his [sic] injuries, and, pursuant to Civil Code Section 2030.230, will produce the documents from which more information may be ascertained. Defendant is directed to Plaintiff’s medical records for more information. The following list is a summary and is not intended to be a comprehensive list of Plaintiff’s injuries.

1. Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-Traumatic Brain Syndrome resulting in cognitive difficulties such as memory loss, loss of focus/concentration and reduced ability to process information.

2. Personality changes such as irritability and angry outbursts and mood swings.

3. Anxiety.

4. Nausea and vomiting.

5. Headaches with light and noise sensitivity.

6. Neck pain.

7. Back pain.

8. Leg pain.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 06/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 54

9. Face pain.” (Wild Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1 (bold in original).)

Defendants argue the foregoing response indicates a non-exclusive list of injuries and that additional information may be obtained from Plaintiff’s medical records. Yet, Defendants were unable to view Plaintiff’s full medical records due to the numerous redactions and insufficient privilege log and, according to Defendants, they were therefore forced to re-issue the Subpoena to Kaiser. Defendants also posit Plaintiff has refused to stipulate to limit her claimed injuries. Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has left unredacted certain pages from the 2,208 production that relate to her 2022 pregnancy and, thus, Plaintiff has placed her gynecological history at issue.

Plaintiff’s counsel argues on reply that he was never asked to stipulate to the body parts at issue. However, Plaintiff’s counsel also never states that he would agree to such a stipulation to resolve the dispute. Plaintiff further contends her “intent of providing a summary of injuries rather than a comprehensive list was because Plaintiff invoked Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, not to claim an unlimited number of damages.” (Reply at 7:5-7.) She also argues that she has not placed all of her OBGYN records at issue simply because she disclosed her 2022 pregnancy.

Despite Defendants’ arguments to the contrary, the Court finds Plaintiff has established a reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical records and the seriousness of the invasion is clear given that the Subpoena seeks all of Plaintiff’s medical records since June of 2016. Even though the request is limited in time and is only issued to one medical facility, the Court disagrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has not established this is a serious invasion of her privacy. Thus, Defendants must demonstrate a compelling need for the records by showing they are directly relevant.

The Court concludes that Defendants have satisfied their burden based upon the discovery response provided by Plaintiff, which is open-ended and not limited. Plaintiff’s discovery response indicates she is providing a “summary list” or her injuries that is not comprehensive, and that additional information regarding her injuries are detailed in her medical records. Within her non-comprehensive list, Plaintiff includes injuries that also go beyond just her head, back and neck. Plaintiff also alleges she has suffered personality changes, anxiety, nausea, headaches, leg pain, and face pain due to Defendants’ conduct.

Given the broad nature of the response, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has waived her privacy rights with respect to the medical records requested by way of the Subpoena and that the records are directly relevant to defend against Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,000 is also DENIED because the motion was denied. In addition, Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not state against whom sanctions are sought. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that a request for sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 06/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 54

Defendants have requested monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,707 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(e) and (h) for spoliation of evidence and making the motion without substantial justification is DENIED. The Court disagrees the motion was made without substantial justification.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 06/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena in Department 54