Jamica Garcia vs. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.

Motion to Quash

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 26, 2016

T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SARAH B. SCHLEHR (SBN 229523) SVETLANA KUPERMAN (SBN 240467) STACEY BROWN (SBN 245661) THE SCHLEHR LAW FIrM, P.C. 150 East Olive Avenue, Suite 214 Burbank, CA 91502 sarah @pregnancylawyer.com (310) 492-5757 phone (310) 601-7959 fax Attorneys for Plaintiff Jamica Garcia SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE JAMICA GARCIA, an individual, Plaintiff, Vv. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.., a corporation; SHARON ROMAN, an individual; CRYSTAL ORTIZ, an individual, KHRIZT LOPEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 30-2016-00883358-CU-WT-CJC Assigned for All Purposes to: Hon. John C. Gastelum Dept. C13 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDED NOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST er SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 1,560 Filed Concurrently with Plaintiff’s Separate Statement; Declaration of Stacey R Brown; Exhibits; and [Proposed] Order RESERVATION ID: 72873001 Date: October 30, 2018 Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: C11 Complaint Filed: October 26, 2016 Trial Date: February 19, 2019 PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 30, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., in Department C11 of the Orange County Superior Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, Plaintiff Jamica Garcia will and hereby does move the Court for an order to quash Defendants Second and Third Notice of Taking the Deposition of Mary Washburn Bull, M.D. and Request for Production of Documents, and to quash the Amended Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things issued to Mary Washburn Bull, M.D. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order to modify said subpoenas to limit the timeframe of the subpoenas from February 2015 to the present and to comply with the First Look Procedure. This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1, 1985.3(g) and 2025 on the grounds that Defendants failed to give proper notice of the deposition, failed to give proper notice to consumer, and that the records sought violate Plaintift’s right to privacy and the privacy rights ofthird parties. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,560 for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as is provided for by Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2. This Motion will be based upon this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Stacey R. Brown with exhibits, the Separate Statement, and any pleadings or records on file herein, as well as such oral and documentary evidence or argument as may be introduced or made at the time of the hearing. DATED: August 17, 2018 THE SCHLEHR LAW FIRM,P.C. > Nas By: She. )Bre> SARAH B. SCHLEHR SVETLANA KUPERMAN STACEY BROWN ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF JAMICA GARCIA i PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS IL INTRODUCTION...eee1 IL. STATEMENT OF ACTS...1 A. Defendants Violated The California Fair Employment And Housing Act............... 1 B. Defendants Have Failed To Timely Notice The Deposition Of Mary Washburn Bull, MD, And Have Failed To Give Timely Notice To Consumer ..............c.ccoceiieveieinnnn 3 C. Plaintiff Has De-Designated Dr. Washburn Bull As A Non-Retained Expert. .........4 D. Plaintiff Sought To Meet And Confer With Defendants To The Filing Of This Motion To QUASI.L 4 III. ARGUMENT...8 A. Defendants failed to provide timely notice of the August 20, 2018 Deposition of Dr. WashburnBull...8 B. Defendants Failed to Provide Notice to Consumer for the August 20, 2018 Deposition of Dr. Washburn Bull and Accompanying Request For Product of Documents........... 8 C. Defendant’s Deposition notices and Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Medical Records For Treatment With Dr. Washburn Bull From 2013 to The Present Seeks Documents That Are Not Discoverable.....o.oo9 i. Defendant Cannot Meets Its Burden In Establishing A Compelling Need For The Entirety OfPlaintiff's Treatment With Dr. Washburn Bull From 2013 To The Present.«o.oo11 il. Any Private medical information ofthirdparties contained in Plaintiff’s Medical Records is Not Discoverable. ...............c.cccooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin. 14 D. Plaintiff Requests Sanctions in the Amount of $1,560.................ccoiiiiiiiiiinn... 14 IV. CONCLUSION. e15 ii PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 ~ N O N n e A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bd. ofMed. Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal.App.3d 609, 678 .......c.cviiiiriieiiiencereceecreersees 14 Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844, 859 (1978); Alch v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.4™ 1412, 1427 (2008). ...ccevevererernnee. 14 Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 844, 859 (1978); Tylo v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1387 (1997.....cccecevvvvvvcennne. 11 Lantz v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1853-54 (1994) ....ooi ircsecteseeeseeeeeaaes 11 Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 833, 841-42 (1987),...ccuuertiiteieetieteeeeeeteetesates sate sateen sate sree e be sbae nee 10, 11 Statutes CHV. PTOC. COE § 1985.3oeseterseee e sree ette sate e et eeebae esas ease aes ae esbe esse asses esse esse esse eens ae esse ease arse ae ssae esse esse aensaessseaes 12} Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.240(D)...c..coveuieeeririeetiiese cientetesteers ete ste eseeaetea ese eae seca se ease eh ee sees sees eh ee steaese eaten 124 CiV. PTOC. COE § 2025.240(C) ue euvrieureeerieetreeieiestee este eteesteesste este esse sesee esse esse asssaassse sass esse asssae sass sess arse assssessse esse snssessssesssesssssssssessseass 11 CiV. PrOC. COE § 2025.27002) ecu ueieurieerieeereeieiestee este eteeseeessae este eeeaessee esse esse asssaesssessse esse asssae esse ssse esse assssesssessssanssasssaessseessssssssnssseass 11 Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1985.3, 1987...iitseessaee secaa ee eae seca eather secant ease eb ee sees seca eneas 124 Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2016.050, TOT3(@ ..ccuurierirerreiereeiieeetceteraeecteeeneces ea et es eae seca sees ese sees secae onan 11 CiV. PrOC. COE § 2017.020(Q). .eeuvrierieerieeereeieieitie erie ere eettesteeette esas sesee esse esse asssaassse esse esas asssae esse ssse esse sssssessse anne ssssasssse arse esssssssessseass 12} CV. PTOC. COE §128(A)(5) veeevreeuriiiiieitie ete eieee sete ette este eee ee ssaeetbe esas setae esse esse esse aes se ssse esse asses ssse esse esse eens se ssse sess anne aessae esse esse sensaessseass 13 CHV. PTOC. COE §1987.1wonterectete et ee ete etae ees eesbae esas ease aes ae esbe esse asses sass esse esse eens ae esse esse arse ae ssae esse esse aensaessseaes 13 CiV. PrOC. COE § 2025.2400(Q) ...cuueieurieerieeereeieiestee erie ete estee este esse eee sesee esse esse asssaessse sass esas asssae esse assesses assssessse arse assasssae arse ssssssseessseass 11 CHV. PTOC. COE § 1985.3oeseterseee e sree ette sate e et eeebae esas ease aes ae esbe esse asses esse esse esse eens ae esse ease arse ae ssae esse esse aensaessseaes 12} Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.240(D)...c..coveuieeeririeetiiese cientetesteers ete ste eseeaetea ese eae seca se ease eh ee sees sees eh ee steaese eaten 124 iii PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORTIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jamica Garcia moves this Court for an order to quash Defendants Second and Third Notice of Taking the Deposition of Mary Washburn Bull, M.D. and Request for Production of Documents, and to quash the Amended Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things issued to Mary Washburn Bull, M.D. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order to modify said subpoena to limit the timeframe of the subpoena from February 2015 to the present and to comply with the First Look Procedure (requiring that the records be produced directly to Plaintiff’s counsel for review and redaction, after which the parties can meet and confer about any such redactions). Defendants failed to provide timely notice of the deposition and failed to provide timely notice to consumer. Moreover, the scope of this subpoena encompasses a timeframe that begins two years before Plaintiff began her employment with Defendants and seeks the production of documents not even remotely related to Plaintiff’s claims or damages. In short, the subpoena is grossly overbroad and invades Plaintiff’s right to privacy. IL. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Defendants Violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act In February 2015, Defendant Life Care hired Plaintiff to work as an LVN at its Lake Forest Nursing Center, an assisted living facility owned by El Toro Medical Investors Limited Partnership (“Defendant El Toro’) and managed by Defendant Life Care. Plaintiff became pregnant in or around May 2015 and disclosed her pregnancy to Defendants’ Director ofNursing at the Lake Forest facility, Sharon Roman, in October 2015. On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff’s OBGYN advised that Plaintiff would need accommodations at work for the next 30 days. Plaintiff notified Ms. Roman of her need for accommodations immediately and explained that her doctor advised that Plaintiff should limit the amount of time on her feet to 50% of her shift, and that she needed to limit her bending and lifting. Plaintiff further advised Defendants that her doctor intended to revisit her restrictions in 30 days. 1 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 After receiving Plaintiff’s request for accommodations, Defendants told Plaintiffthatit would not accommodate her work restrictions and that she would need to take a leave of absence. Defendants then informed Plaintiff that, because she had not been employed with the company for twelve months nor had she worked the requisite 1,250 hours, she did not qualify for any job-protected leave, that her leave would be classified as a “non-FMLA”leave, and that her job was not protected. Plaintiff repeatedly requested that her work restrictions be accommodated and that she be allowed to return to work. However, Defendants refused to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff or allow her to return to work with restrictions. Defendants failed to ever offer or permit Plaintiff to take Pregnancy Disability Leave. On January 26, 2016, while Plaintiff was still pregnant and at a time when Defendants should have permitted her to take Pregnancy Disability Leave, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff gave birth in February 2016. That same month, Plaintiff advised Defendants that she had given birth and asked to be returned to work after she was released by her doctor. Defendants responded that they had already terminated Plaintiffs employment. Defendants never reasonably accommodated, transferred, or permitted Plaintiff to take leave under California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave Law. In fact, Defendants Life Care and El Toro failed to have a Pregnancy Disability Leave policy that complied with California Law. Plaintiff has experienced significant wage loss, emotional distress, and economic damages as a result of the conduct of Defendants. In addition to her monetary damages, Plaintiff is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court. Dr. Washburn Bull is an OBGYN with Kaiser who Plaintiff saw in relation to her pregnancy and the birth of her child in 2016. Defendants did not did not seek the production of Dr. Washburn Bull’s records records during fact discovery (which closed on August 13, 2018), and sought to subpoena the production of her records only after the parties’ designation of expert witnesses. Although Dr. Washburn Bull wasinitially designated as a non-retained expert, Plaintiff has since withdrawn such designation. 2 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Defendants Have Failed to Timely Notice the Deposition of Mary Washburn Bull, MD, and Have Failed to Give Timely Notice to Consumer On August 2, 2018 Defendants personally served Defendants’ Second Amended Notice of Taking the Deposition of Mary Washburn Bull, MD and Request for Production of Documents, and accompanying Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and the Production of Documents and Things (referred to herein as “Second Amended Deposition Notice and Subpoena for Washburn Bull”). Brown Decl. | 4, Ex. C.! The Second Amended Deposition Notice and Subpoena for Washburn Bull noticed Dr. Bull’s deposition for August 27, 2018 at 11 a.m. Brown Decl. | 4, Ex. C. Included with the Second Amended Deposition Notice and Subpoena for Washburn Bull was a request for the production of documents as follows: I. Any and all documents from January 1, 2013 to present reflecting treatment or care provided by Mary Washburn Bull, MD to Jamica P. Garcia aka Jamica P. Castro. DOB: [redacted], SSN: Unknown, including, but not limited to, medical records, progress notes, in-take forms, patient charts, lab reports, doctor entries, nurses’ notes, case history, emergency room records, surgical reports, x-rays, MRI and PET Scan results, admitting sheets, transport sheets, discharge forms, flowsheets, prescriptions, dosage information, payment history, prescriber information, hard copies of computer records, correspondence pertaining to the diagnosis, condition, care and/or treatment of. If any of the diagnostic testing is available in electronic format, same1s requested on a CD or similar format in addition to reports on evaluations of the results of such testing. 2. Any and all communications with Sarah Schlehr or anyone at The Schlehr Law Firm. 3. A copy of the curriculum vitae for Mary Washburn Bill, MD. Brown Decl. | 4, Ex. C. Then on August 6, 2018, Defendants served by mail the Third Amended Notice of Taking the Deposition of Mary Washburn Bull, MD and Request for Production of Documents (“Third Amended Deposition Notice of Washburn Bull”), setting the date of deposition for August 20, 2018. Brown Decl., | 5, Ex. D. The Third Amended Deposition Notice of Washburn ! On July 26, 2018 Defendants personally served a deposition notice for Dr. Wasburn Bull’s appearance on August 7, 2018 but did not include request or subpoena for the production of records. Brown Decl., | 2, Ex.A. On August 1, 2018, Defendants personally served an amended deposition notice and subpoena for appearance and production of records for August 23, 2018. Brown Decl., { 3, Ex. B. 3 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bull did not include a deposition subpoena. Brown Decl., | 5, Ex. D. Defendants’ Third Amended Deposition Notice of Washburn Bull sought the same production of documents,as did the Second Amended Deposition Notice and Subpoena for Washburn Bull but advanced the deposition and document production date by a week while failing to provide adequate notice. Defendants have failed to provide timely notice to consumer and/or timely notice of deposition. Moreover, the scope of the subpoenais grossly overbroad and the production of all of Plaintiff’s medical records related to her care or treatment provided by Dr. Washburn Bull from January 2013 to the present would result in a violation of Plaintiffs right to privacy, as well as any third parties whose medical information is addressed in Plaintiff’s medical records. C. Plaintiff has De-Designated Dr. Washburn Bull as a Non-Retained Expert On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff de-designated Dr. Washburn Bull as a non-retained expert and advised Defendants that she did not intend to call Dr. Washburn Bullto testify at trial. Brown Decl. | 21, Ex. L. D. Plaintiff Sought to Meet and Confer with Defendants to the Filing of This Motion to Quash In an effort to resolve this issue without Court intervention, Plaintiff’s counsel has sought repeatedly to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel. On August 10, 2016 Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel Miko Sargizian, seeking to meet and confer about the scope of the documents sought, as well as the untimeliness of Defendants’ notice of deposition for August 20, 2018. Brown Decl., | 7, Ex. E. In an effort to reach resolution regarding the documents sought by Defendants, Plaintiff’s counsel proposed used ofthe First Look Procedure (“FLP”’), whereby the subpoenaed records are produced by the deposition officer directly to the office of Plaintiff’s counsel only, and Plaintiff’s counsel then reviews the records and makes any redactions necessary to protect the privacy interest of Plaintiff and any third parties referenced in the records. The parties then have the opportunity to meet and confer about any such redactions, and if the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the burden is on 4 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff to file a motion to maintain the disputed redactions. Brown Decl. 7, Ex. E. (When used throughout, “First Look Procedure” or “FLP”refersto this practice.) Plaintiffs counsel did not receive a response to her August 10, 2018 email, and on August 14, 2018 again reached out to Defendants’ counsel, Ms. Sargizian. Brown Decl., | 8, Ex. E. Plaintiff’s counsel proposed that the noticed depositions be taken off calendar so that the parties have time to meet and confer, and again proposed the FLP. Plaintiff’s counsel requested a response by 5 pm the following day. Brown Decl. { 8, Ex. E. On August 14, 2018 Ms. Sargizian responded that she needed more time to consider the FLP but maintained the relevancy of the documents sought. See Brown Decl., { 8, Ex. E. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that they were trying to strike a balance between protecting their client’s privacy rights and the privacy rightsof] third parties, which is why the FLP was being proposed. Plaintiff's counsel stated that they were not opposed to providing Defendants more time to consider the FLP and again proposed that the provider depositions be continued. See Brown Decl., | 8, Ex. E. Plaintiff’s counsel also brought up the fact that Defendants had unilaterally moved up the date of Dr. Washburn Bull’s deposition and requested that Defendants agree that Plaintiff's counsel have until at least August 17, 2018 to file a motion to quash. Brown Decl. { 8, Ex. E. Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive a response to her August 14, 2018 email. Brown Decl., q 8. On August 15, 2018 Plaintiff’s counsel also notified Defendants that Dr. Washburn Bull was being de-designated as an expert and requested that Defendants withdraw their deposition subpoena of Dr. Washburn. Brown Decl., | 21, Ex. L On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with Kaiser and learned for the first time that Defendants had unilaterally set the following depositions without giving notice to Plaintiff: . Dr. Diane Spak, set for 8/21/2018 at 3:00 pm . Monisha Advani, MFT, set for 8/24/2018 at 9:00 am . Diane Ortiz, LCSW,set for 8/24 at 12:00 pm . Daniel Garcia, LCSW,set for 8/24/2018 at 2:00 pm Brown Decl.| 9. 5 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On August 16, 2018 Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel regarding the issues related to deposition notices to Plaintiff's doctors, calling specific attention to the fact that Defendants did not give timely notice the August 20, 2018 deposition of Dr. Washburn Bull and that Defendants failed to give proper notice to consumer for the deposition of Dr. Washburn Bull and Dr. Kazemi. Brown Decl. { 9, Ex. E. Plaintiff’s counsel also brought to the attention of Defendants’ counsel the fact that Defendants had not given any notice of the following depositions: . Dr. Diane Spak, set for 8/21/2018 at 3:00 pm . Monisha Advani, MFT, set for 8/24/2018 at 9:00 am . Diane Ortiz, LCSW,set for 8/24 at 12:00 pm . Daniel Garcia, LCSW,set for 8/24/2018 at 2:00 pm. Brown Decl. , | 9, Ex. E. On August 16, 2018 in response to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email, Defendants served the following deposition notices by email: e Dr. Diane Spak,set for 8/21/2018 at 3:00 pm e Monisha Advani, MFT, set for 8/24/2018 at 9:00 am e Diane Ortiz, LCSW,set for 8/24 at 12:00 pm e Daniel Garcia, LCSW,set for 8/24/2018 at 2:00 pm. Brown Decl. {{ 12-14, Ex. H. On August 16, 2018 Plaintiff’s counsel sent yet another meet and confer objecting to the untimely deposition notices of Dr. Washburn Bull, Dr. Diane Spak, Monisha Advani, Diane Ortiz, and Daniel Garcia. Brown Decl., | 15, Ex. G. Plaintiff further objected that Defendants failed to give notice to consumer for each of these depositions, as well as the deposition of Dr. Kazemi, noticed for August 23, 2018. Brown Decl., q 15, Ex. G. In response, Defendants’ 2 The parties do not havein place an agreement to allow service by email. Brown Decl. | 13. 6 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 counsel Ms. Sargizian, responded that on August 3, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel was served with the following deposition subpoenas: e Dr. Diane Spak (noticing the deposition and production of records for 8/27/2018); e Dr. Washburn Bull (noticing the deposition and production of records for 8/27/2018); e Dr. Mina Kazemi (noticing the deposition and production of records for 8/27/2018); and e Dr. Julia Balan (noticing the deposition and production of records for 8/27/2018). Brown Decl., | 15, Ex. G. Counsel for Defendants then went on to state Kaiser contacted Defendants counsel and requested that the depositions be rescheduled based on the providers availability and asserted that the notice requirement “only applies to the deponent” and that Plaintiff’s counsel had notice of the depositions of the deposition since August 3, 2018 (depositions that were noticed for dates different from those on which Defendants intend to proceed). Brown Decl. q 15, Ex. G. Defendant’s counsel Ms. Sargizian concluded her email by stating that she was “not understanding what the problem is. Sorry.” Brown Decl. 15, Ex. G.? Plaintiff’s counsel responded by citing to the relevant sections of the Code of Civil Procedure setting forth requirements for deposition notices and notice to consumer. Brown Decl. | 16, Ex. G. On August 16, 2018 Plaintiff’s counsel also left messages for Ms. Sargizian and Ms. Endelicato in an attempt to meet and confer by phone, but did not receive a call back. Brown Decl. 17. 3 It seemsthat Defendants would have proceeded with the depositions of Dr. Diane Spak (set for 8/21/2018 at 3:00 pm), Monisha Advani, MFT (set for 8/24/2018 at 9:00 am), Diane Ortiz, LCSW (set for 8/24 at 12:00 pm) and Daniel Garcia, LCSW (set for 8/24/2018 at 2:00 pm) without ever giving notice to Plaintiff’s counsel. The only reason Plaintiff’s counsel became aware of these depositions was because she happened to call Kaiser to seek clarification about status of subpoenas when no response was forthcoming from Defendants. It was only after Plaintiff’s counsel objected that these depositions had been set without giving notice to Plaintiff that Defendants provided inadequate notice by email. 7 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On August 16, 2018 Plaintiff’s counsel emailed courtesy copies of objections to the following depositions, notified Defendants’ counsel that they would be proceeding with filing motions to quash, and had the same objections personally served on the office of Defendant’s counsel on August 17, 2018: e Deposition of Dr. Washburn Bull (unilaterally noticed for August 20, 2018); e Deposition of Dr. Diane Spak (unilaterally noticed for August 21, 2018); e Deposition of Dr. Mina Kazemi (unilaterally noticed for August 23, 2018); e Deposition of Diane Ortiz (unilaterally noticed for August 24, 2018); e Deposition of Daniel James Garcia (unilaterally noticed for August, 24, 2018); e Deposition of Monisha Dahlia Advani (unilaterally noticed for August 24, 2018). Brown Decl. § 19, Ex. H. III. ARGUMENT A. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PROVIDE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE AUGUST 20, 2018 DEPOSITION OF DR. WASHBURN BULL On August 6, 2018 Defendants served by mail Defendants’ Third Amended Notice of Taking the Deposition of Mary Washburn Bull, MD and Request for Production of Documents for August 20, 2018. Brown Decl. { 5, Ex. D. Defendants’ counsel never sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding a mutually agreeable date for the deposition. Brown Decl. J 6. Defendants were required to provide Plaintiff with at least 10 days notice plus an additional 5 day days for service by mail. See Code Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 2025.240(a) (“The party who prepares a notice of deposition shall give the notice to every other party who has appeared in the action.”); CCP § 2025.270(a) (requiring an oral deposition to be scheduled for at least 10 days after service of the deposition notice); CCP §§ 2016.050, 1013(a) (a five day extension of time applies where notices are served by mail). Defendants failed to provide timely notice, and as such, their notice of deposition and request for production of documents for August 20, 2018 is invalid. 8 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO CONSUMER FOR THE AUGUST 20), 2018 DEPOSITION OF DR. WASHBURN BULL AND ACCOMPANYING REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants’ Third Amended Deposition Notice of Washburn Bull failed to attach a copy of the deposition subpoena for the personal appearance of Dr. Washburn Bull and production of documents. CCP § 2025.240(c) (If the attendance of the deponentis to be compelled by service of a deposition subpoena, an identical copy of the that subpoena shall be served with the deposition notice). Moreover, at no point have Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of consumer for the production of Plaintiff’s medical records on August 20, 2018 in violation of CCP §§ 1985.3, 1987 and 2025.240(b). Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.240(b) requires that if the party giving notice of the deposition is a subpoenaing party, and the deponent is a witness commanded by a deposition subpoena to produce personal records of consumer, the subpoenaing party shall serve on that consumer the following: (a) notice of the deposition; (b) the notice of privacy rights specified in subdivision (e) of section 1985.3; and (c): a copy of the deposition subpoena. Defendants failed to serve a copy of the subpoena compelling Dr. Washburn Bull’s personal appearance and production of records on August 20, 2018. Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3 defines “personal records” to include medical records and requires that a subpoenaing party provide notice to consumer oftheir privacy rights, including right to file a motion to quash the subpoena. By failing to serve a copy of the deposition subpoena and notice to consumer for August 20, 2018, Defendants have failed to comply with CCP § 1985.3, and as such their deposition notice and request for the production of documentsis invalid. C. DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION NOTICES AND SUBPOENA FOR PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS FOR TREATMENT WITH DR. WASHBURN BULL FROM 2013 TO THE PRESENT SEEKS DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE. 9 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The right to discovery in civil actions is not absolute. The Court has the authority to “limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of the discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.020(a). Moreover, the Court is authorized to “make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the parties, the witnesses or the consumer from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violation of witness's or consumers right to privacy.” Civ. Proc. Code §1987.1. The Court also has the powerto “control in furtherance ofjustice, the conduct ofits ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding beforeit, in every manner pertaining thereto.” Civ. Proc. Code §128(a)(5). The Court is empowered to limit discovery when discovery unreasonably impedes upon an individual’s Constitutional right to privacy, which indisputably extends to an individual’s medical records, as well as the details of an individual’s personallife. See, e.g., Davis v. Superion Court, 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1019 (1992); Valley Bank ofNevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 652, 656 (1975). Medical records are further protected by the physician-patient privilege. See Evid. Code §§ 992 and 1010 et seq.; see, e.g., Davis, 7 Cal.App.4th at 1017. “A person’s medical profile is an area of privacy infinitely more intimate, more personal in nature than many areas already judicially recognized and protected.” Bd. ofMed. Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 678 (1979). (internalcitations removed). The law is well-settled that a California plaintiff does not waive all privacy rights merely because she files a lawsuit or seeks damages for emotional distress. In Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 833, 841-42 (1987), the California Supreme Court stated, in language fully applicable here: “We cannot agree that the mere initiation of a sexual harassment suit, even with the rather extreme mental and emotional damage plaintiffclaims to have suffered, functions to waive all her privacy interests... Plaintiff is not compelled, as a condition to entering the courtroom, to discard entirely her mantle of privacy.” 10 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A party seeking discovery of private information bears the heavy burden of establishing a “compelling” need for that discovery that outweighs the right to privacy. See Lantz v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1853-54 (1994). Thus, the normal standard for discovery set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 — i.e., that the information sought need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence — is inapplicable to discovery of items protected by a constitutional right to privacy. Id. Instead, the party must show that the information sought is both directly relevant to the action and essential to its fair resolution. Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 844, 859 (1978); Tylo v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1387 (1997). As the court in Lantz explained, quoting from previous precedents: [A]n implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. . . [E]ven when discovery of private information is found directly relevantto the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must be a ‘careful balancing’ of the ‘compelling public need’ for discovery against the ‘fundamental right of privacy.’ Id. at 1854 (emphasis added; internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, speculation that private information might be relevant is not sufficient to outweigh the constitutional protection. See Davis, 7 Cal. App. 4th at 1017. In addition, even if an intrusion on the right to privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, “such intrusion should be the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective.” Id. The burden here is on Defendant to establish that it is entitled to all of the information sought in these subpoenas, and that the subpoenas are no more intrusive than necessary. As discussed below, Defendant cannot satisfy this significant burden. i. Defendant Cannot Meets Its Burden in Establishing a Compelling Needfor the Entirety ofPlaintiff’s Treatment with Dr. Washburn Bullfrom 2013 to the Present. 11 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 There is no possible justification in this matter for Defendants to seek highly private medical records in this scope and magnitude. Dr. Washburn Bull was one of Plaintiff’s OBGYNSs, and Defendants seek all of Dr. Washburn Bull’s records related her treatment of Plaintiff from January 1, 2013 to the present. Plaintiff is not alleging that she sustained physical injury as a result of Defendants conduct, or that a pre-existing physical condition was made worse by the conduct of Defendants. Brown Decl. 22. As such, the production ofall of Plaintiff’s medical records from her treatment with Dr. Washburn Bull is grossly overbroad. Although the trial date in this matter was continued from September 10, 2018 to February 19, 2019, fact discovery closed August 13, 2018. Defendants sought only to take the oral deposition of Dr. Washburn Bull while fact discovery was open and did not issue a subpoena to compel Dr. Washburn Bull’s deposition or the production of documents while fact discovery was open. See Brown Decl.| 2, Ex. A. Plaintiff has withdrawn Dr. Washburn Bull as a non-retained expert witness. Brown Decl., | 21. This alone is sufficient to preclude the deposition of Dr. Washburn and the production of her records. However, should the Court consider allowing the deposition of Dr. Washburn Bull and the production of her records to proceed, scope of said deposition and production of records must be limited. Plaintiff does allege that due to complications related to her pregnancy, her medical provider issued work restrictions and that Defendants refused to accommodate those restrictions. Brown Decl. q 22. Plaintiff does not dispute that medical records directly related to those work restrictions issued by her doctor while she was employed for Defendants may be discoverable, nor does she dispute that medical records related to being placed off work and records returning her to work during the relevant time frame (November 2015 through May 2016 when Plaintiff obtained full-time employment following the birth of her child) may be discoverable. Brown Decl. J 23. The records sought by Defendant far exceed the scope of what could possibly be relevant or discoverable in this matter. Defendants seek the records from Plaintiff’s OBGYN from January 2013 to the present. It is likely that Plaintiff’s medical records will include a history of her pregnancy generally, and her gynecological or reproductive health, which is indisputably of a 12 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 private nature, and has no bearing on Plaintiff’s claims or damages. OBGYN records frequently include information related to sexual history, information aboutlibido, tests for sexually transmitted infections, information related to past pregnancies (including the number of pregnancies, miscarriages and abortions), information related to the duration and nature of menstrual cycles, and family history.* Plaintiff's medical records may also disclose unrelated illnesses and the symptoms of those illnesses or medications prescribed, lab work ordered and the results of such lab work. Defendant has also sought the production of imaging, such as x-rays and MRIs. Absent a claim by Plaintiff for physical injury, it stretches the imagination consider what relevance such information may have in this matter. Given the scope of the documents sought by Defendant’s subpoena,it is difficult to imagine what information would be excluded from the document request as it relates to Dr. Wasburn Bull’s treatment of Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena, or in the alternative, seeks an order that the Court narrow the scope of the subpoena to from February 2015 (when Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants began) to the present and order that parties proceed through the First Look Procedure. (While Plaintiff recognizes that there may some documents ofrelevance in Plaintift’s medical records from 2015 to the present, many of the records will not be relevant to this matter and may contain highly sensitive information, and as such, their production to Defendants will violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy and the privacy rights to third parties. By going through the First Look Procedure, Plaintiff’s counsel can undertake efforts to protect Plaintiff’s right to privacy, while at the same time providing Defendants with information to which they may be entitled. Significantly, the FLP is the procedure that is used for any other request for production. For example, when Plaintiff requests documents from Defendants, Defendants’ counsel reviews responsive documents and makes a decision about which records are to be produced and which documents are protected under grounds privilege or privacy. The parties then meet and confer * Plaintiff offers these examples to demonstrate the types of information that is frequently included in medical records, especially OBGYN records and to demonstrate why the First Look Procedure is particularly appropriate. 13 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 about the production or redactions to such documents. This process should be no different, particularly where Plaintiff’s private medical information is at issue. il. Any Private medical information ofthirdparties contained in Plaintiff’s Medical Records is Not Discoverable. In the course of treatment medical providers routinely ask for information about medical history of family members. By seeking the unredacted Plaintiff’s unredacted medical records, this information would necessarily be disclosed to Defendants causing a violation of those third parties privacy interests in their medical information. More specifically, in the case of Plaintiff, her medical records may include private medical information about her children (including private medical information about her child born in February 2016, whose health issues that were monitored during Plaintiff’s pregnancy and after his birth). It cannot be disputed that these third- party individuals have a privacy interest in their private medical information. See e.g. Bd. of Med. Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 678 (“A person’s medical profile is an area of privacy infinitely more intimate, more personal in nature than many areas already judicially recognized and protected.”) (internal citations removed). Defendant must demonstrate that its need for the private medical information of third parties, including that of Plaintiff’s minor child, override’s the privacy interest that of those parties. See Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844, 859 (1978); Alch v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.4™ 1412, 1427 (2008). Defendant cannot meetthis burden. D. PLAINTIFF REQUESTS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560 Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,560, as provide for by the Code of Civil Procedure. CCP § 1987.2 (“|T]he court mayin 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 of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”) Defendants’ counsel have refused to engage in a good faith meet and confer about the scheduling of Dr. Washburn Bull’s deposition and the scope of the records sought. Defendant’s 14 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 A N n n W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 counsel utterly failed to give adequate notice of the August 20, 2018 deposition as required by the Code of Civil Procedure and failed to give notice to consumer for the same deposition as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. When said issues were brought to the attention of Defendant’s counsel, she denied that Defendants were required to give timely notice to Plaintiff and glibly stated that she was “not understanding what the problem is. Sorry.” Brown Decl. | 15, Ex. G. Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly attempted to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel, but has received wholly inadequate and dismissive responses, requiring Plaintiff's counsel to bring the instant motion to quash to protect Plaintiff’s privacy rights. Plaintiff’s counsel’s usual hourly rate is $500.00. Brown Decl., | 24. Thefiling fee for the instant motion was $60.00. Brown Decl., | 24. Plaintiff’s counsel has spent in excess of 8 hours meeting and conferring with Defendants’ counsel, contacting Kaiser when Defendants’ counsel failed to substantively respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts, and preparing motions to quash. Brown Decl. | 24. Plaintiff’s counsel will easily incur another at least another 3 hours reviewing Defendant’s opposition, preparing a reply brief, and appearing for the hearing in this matter. Brown Decl., q 24. Despite spending significantly more time on this issue, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks as sanctions only three hours of attorney time at $500/hour and the filing fee for the instant motion. Brown Decl., | 24. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Jamica Garcia respectfully requests that the Court quash the subpoena issued by Defendants to Mary Washburn Bull, MD in its entirety or in the alternative, modify the subpoena to limit the time frame of the documents sought to subpoena to February 1, 2015 to the present, and require that the parties utilize the First Look Procedure. DATED: August 17, 2018 THE SCHLEHR LAW FIRM,P.C. By: SARAH B. SCHLEHR Svetlana Kuperman STACEY BROWN ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF JAMICA GARCIA 15 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560. T h e S c h l e h r L a w F i r m , P. C. 1 5 0 E a s t O l i v e A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 4 B u r b a n k , C A 9 1 5 0 2 ( 3 1 0 ) 4 9 2 - 5 7 5 7 ~ N O N n e A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH THE SECOND AND THIRD AMENDEDNOTICES OF TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF MARY WASHBURN BULL, MD AND REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560.