Casimiro Adelaido Ruiz Cortes, et al. v. Cody James Phillips, et al.

Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel prior to filing the motion. (Daneshrad Decl., ¶¶ 5-9.) Plaintiff contends that the request is overboard and seeks records irrelevant to the claims and injuries in this case. In an effort to avoid unnecessary motion practice and to proceed cooperatively, the parties entered into a “First Look” agreement under which Plaintiff agreed to review the subpoenaed records and thereafter state any objections. (Id. ̧¶ 7; Ex. D.)

The First Look agreement provided that upon receipt, Plaintiff’s counsel, would have seven business days to review the documents and determine whether he will make objection to the production to Defendant. “If objections are made with notice to all parties, the litigants agree to take the documents to the judge for an in camera review, which will require Plaintiff to file the necessary motion within 10 days of objection made to all parties of this Stipulation.” (Ex. D.)

On January 21, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel received the subpoenaed records. After careful review, Plaintiff objected to the documents in their entirety. (Daneshrad Decl., ¶ 8; Ex. E.) Plaintiff contends the record are wholly irrelevant and consist almost exclusively of blood panels and laboratory results relating to cholesterol levels, dietary matters, and weight-related metrics. (Ibid.) Defendants continued to seek the documents, and Plaintiff filed his motion.

Plaintiff requests that he be allowed to lodge the subpoenaed records with the Court, and that the Court conduct an in-camera review of the documents pursuant to the First Look agreement. Plaintiff contends that once reviewed, it will be apparent to the Court that the documents are irrelevant to this action.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries and that he has put his medical records at issue in the case. They contend that the records are during the same period of time as Plaintiff’s treatment for the accident injuries, that Plaintiff has not been working since the accident and asserts that he is unable to return to work seeking damages for loss of income and loss of earning capacity, and that the reasons for his inability to work as well as physical injuries make this inquiry relevant to the claims of Plaintiff and the defense of said claims. (Reisdorph Decl., ¶¶ 2, 10.)

Defendants contend that Plaintiff responded to discovery stating that he did not have a primary physician and that he had not been treated prior to the accident by any physician other that Dr. Babak Samini, but that in the records Dr. Samini provided prior to his deposition on September 11, 2025, Plaintiff himself identified a treating primary physician to be Tusher Yadav, who examined Plaintiff at Santa Maria Health Care Center, to whom the subpoena is directed. (Reisdorph Decl., ¶¶ 3-9) The language in this subpoena is the same as Defendants used in all the other subpoenas to which Plaintiff did not object as to all the treating physicians identified. (Reisdorph Decl., ¶ 10.)

Defendants contend the motion should be denied and that sanctions are not warranted.

The scope of discovery is broad and Plaintiff has put his medical condition and medical records at issue in this case. Plaintiff failed to file a reply addressing or disputing any of

Defendants’ arguments as to why the records are relevant and should be produced. The Court notes that the subpoena appears to have conflicting dates – one copy of “Attachment 3” requests records starting December 1, 2012, and a second copy requests records starting December 1, 2022, the date of the accident. The Court considers the 2012 date to be an error, and limits the records to those beginning on December 1, 2022, the date of alleged accident.

With that clarification, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied.

3