YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash and/or Issuance of Protective Order Re: Subpoenas to State Farm Insurance for Records Related to October 2019 Collision in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Leslie Yang’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to quash Defendant Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Defendant”) subpoena to State Farm Insurance (“State Farm”) for Records Relating to October 2019 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision on or around August 11, 2018. (Compl. ¶ 1.) The Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff alleges she was involved in a rear end collision caused by Ernesto Chavez, which resulted in an injury to her neck and back as well as a traumatic brain injury. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) At the time of the incident, Chavez was covered by Defendant under an auto liability policy, which had $15,000 of automobile liability coverage. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Before a lawsuit was even filed, Plaintiff made a $15,000 policy limit demand.[1] (Compl. ¶ 4.) Over the course of the ensuing litigation, Plaintiff made several subsequent policy limit demands, all of which were rejected by Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 5.) The case went to trial in April 2023 and the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $1,745,000. (Compl. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint in the present litigation on May 3, 2024. Defendant filed an Answer on June 6, 2024, generally denying the allegations and asserting defenses, including application of the doctrine of unclean hands.

On January 14, 2025, Defendant served Plaintiff with a subpoena for records pertaining to Plaintiff issued to State Farm, demanding documents related to a motor vehicle accident Plaintiff was involved in on October 12, 2019. (Ackel Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. M.) On January 22, 2025,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash and/or Issuance of Protective Order Re: Subpoenas to State Farm Insurance for Records Related to October 2019 Collision in Department 53

Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel to request the subpoena be withdrawn due to privacy concerns. (Ackel Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. N.) Counsel for the parties met and conferred but were unable to resolve the dispute. (Ackel Decl., ¶¶ 15-22.) At issue are the following six document requests, related to the October 12, 2019 accident: 1. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and YANG regarding the CLAIM or the ACCIDENT.

2. All DOCUMENTS that reflect, constitute, or evidence any medical records or bills that YANG submitted to YOU, or that YOU otherwise obtained, related to any injuries that YANG claimed to have sustained in the ACCIDENT.

3. All DOCUMENTS that YANG submitted to YOU related to the ACCIDENT or the CLAIM, including any DOCUMENTS that YANG submitted that reflect, refer, or relate to any injuries she claimed to have sustained as a result of the ACCIDENT.

4. All DOCUMENTS that reflect or refer to the nature and/or extent of any injuries claimed by YANG as a result of the ACCIDENT. (Note: for the purposes of this subpoena, YOU may redact all PII of any other insureds or claimants besides YANG.)

5. Any demand(s) for payment of insurance benefits that YANG submitted to YOU related to the CLAIM or the ACCIDENT.

6. All DOCUMENTS that evidence or reflect the payment of any insurance benefits to YANG related to the CLAIM or ACCIDENT, including any DOCUMENTS that explain the basis for any such payments. (Ackel Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. M.; Memorandum 6:26-7:12.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order quashing Defendant’s subpoena pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 and for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff argues the subpoena violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff further argues that the subpoena calls for documents relevant to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 12, 2019, well after Plaintiff was making the policy demands at issue to Defendant.

Defendant opposes, arguing the subpoena seeks information directly relevant to Plaintiff’s bad faith claims against Defendant and Defendant’s defenses. Defendant further argues Plaintiff waived her right to privacy and the right is not implicated because there is a protective order in this case.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: “If a subpoena requires ... the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court ... the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash and/or Issuance of Protective Order Re: Subpoenas to State Farm Insurance for Records Related to October 2019 Collision in Department 53

(b) ... may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” Subdivision (b) provides that consumers as described in section 1985.3 may make a motion to quash.

Discussion

Plaintiff first argues the subpoena should be quashed because it seeks records implicating Plaintiff’s right to privacy, including her medical records, which Defendant has not demonstrated is directly relevant to this litigation. Plaintiff argues the “sole question before the jury in this case was whether [Defendant] acted reasonably in protecting the interests of its insured. It is not clear why [Defendant] believes records related to Yang’s education or subsequent automobile accidents are relevant to that question.” (Memorandum, 10:12-15.)

Defendant asserts that the information sought through the subpoena at issue is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding whether: (1) Plaintiff adequately presented such a claim to Defendant; (2) Defendant unreasonably evaluated the claim; and/or (3) Plaintiff acted with unclean hands. Specifically, Defendant argues that if Plaintiff was seeking recovery for the same injuries from multiple insurance companies or telling different insurance companies that their accident caused the same TBI, the conduct could preclude recovery.

The California Supreme Court has established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy in the context of discovery.

The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (internal citations omitted).)

There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s medical records are protected by the right to privacy. Plaintiff also has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical records, to the extent they are unrelated to the issues in this lawsuit. However, such right is not absolute and private information may be subject to discovery where the information is “directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.) A party “is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash and/or Issuance of Protective Order Re: Subpoenas to State Farm Insurance for Records Related to October 2019 Collision in Department 53

specific mental or emotional injury; the scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 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 [citing In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415.)

Here, the subpoena requests documents including medical records, which Plaintiff submitted to the third-party insurance company in support of her claim related to her April 7, 2022 motor vehicle accident. The subpoena is not directed to Plaintiff’s medical provider nor does it seek lifetime medical records. Rather, it seeks to obtain documents related to the claims for injuries made by Plaintiff as a result of an accident that occurred a little over a year after the accident that gave rise to this action and prior to the trial and judgment in the underlying action.

The types and cause of the injuries claimed in the 2019 motor vehicle accident, including the medical records submitted in support of that claim, are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit, including the potential application of Defendant’s pleaded affirmative defense of unclean hands. Further, the Court finds that the production should be subject to the protective order in this case to address any further privacy concerns.

To the extent Plaintiff argues that “any after the fact conduct of Plaintiff wouldn’t be relevant to the facts at issue in this case,” the Court does not find such argument to be persuasive. [T]he unclean hands doctrine is not a legal or technical defense to be used as a shield against a particular element of a cause of action. Rather, it is an equitable rationale for refusing a plaintiff relief where principles of fairness dictate that the plaintiff should not recover, regardless of the merits of his claim.

It is available to protect the court from having its powers used to bring about an inequitable result in the litigation before it. Thus, any evidence of a plaintiff's unclean hands in relation to the transaction before the court or which affects the equitable relations between the litigants in the matter before the court should be available to enable the court to effect a fair result in the litigation.

(Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 985 (internal citations omitted).) As such, in a malicious prosecution matter, the appellate court rejected attempts to limit evidence to misconduct that bears on the defendant’s decision to file the prior action because “unclean hands concerns the far broader questions of a party’s misconduct in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash and/or Issuance of Protective Order Re: Subpoenas to State Farm Insurance for Records Related to October 2019 Collision in Department 53

matter.” (Id. at 985-986.) Under the doctrine of unclean hands, a plaintiff “must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief.” (Id. at 978.) In this case alleging a bad faith failure to settle for the policy limits, the plaintiff’s claims for injuries arising out of another motor vehicle accident to another insurance company – particularly where it occurred a little more than a year after the initial accident and prior to the trial in the underlying action and where it is one of three motor vehicle accidents in six years that Plaintiff filed insurance claims for after this accident that gave rise to the underlying action in this case – is sufficiently related to provide for the discovery requested.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and based on the court’s consideration of the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion with the countervailing interests, the motion to quash is DENIED.

Protective Order

In the body of her Memorandum, Plaintiff seeks the Court issue a protective order. This request is not set forth in Plaintiff’s notice of motion, and is therefore not considered by the Court.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, which provides, in relevant part: “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more the requirements was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2(a).) Defendant opposes the motion and asserts that, “if the Court is inclined to sanction anyone,” it should be Plaintiff and/or her counsel. (Opp’n at 20.)

Although Defendant has prevailed in its opposition, the Court does not find Plaintiff acted without substantial justification in filing the motion. Therefore, the requests for sanctions are denied.

Disposition

For the aforementioned reasons, the motion is DENIED.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash and/or Issuance of Protective Order Re: Subpoenas to State Farm Insurance for Records Related to October 2019 Collision in Department 53 [1] On April 30, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff issued a demand for the $15,000 policy limits. (Declaration of

Alexander Ackel, ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the MRA report with the demand, and indicated Plaintiff had suffered a concussion as a result of the incident. (Memorandum, 4:9-11.) Plaintiff filed suit against Chavez and litigation ensued. (Memorandum, 5:2-3.) Plaintiff was deposed on March 2, 2020. (Id., ¶8.) Plaintiff’s counsel issued another policy limits demand on May 20, 2020. (Ackel Decl., ¶9.) Plaintiff’s counsel issued a third policy limits demand on March 12, 2021. (Id., ¶11.) Plaintiff’s counsel renewed the demand on August 12, 2021. (Id., ¶13.)