Preview
JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690)
jbriscoe@mavallaw.com
2 MAYALL H U R L E Y P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
3 Stockton, California 95207-8253
4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge
6
SUPERIOR COURT QF T H E STATE QF CALIFORNIA
7
8 IN AND FOR T H E COUNTY QF SACRAMENTO
9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual. Case No.: 34-2019-00265393
10 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
11
vs. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
12 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S
THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
13 and DOES 1-100, inclusive. SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION
FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH
14 Defendants. SUBPOENA
15
Date: December 2022
16 Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept.: 53
17 Res.: 2690025
18
19
20
21 Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge") submits the following Memorandum of Points and
22 Authorities in opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's' Second Motion to Compel
23 Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena, and for Sanctions.
24
25
26
27 Referred to herein as "Defendant" or "CHP."
28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second
Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena
Page 1 of 4
1 This is the second time that CHP has sought an order compelling Ridge to authorize a
2 tremendously broad release of his private, medical and psychiatric records from his marriage and
3 family therapist. Last time, the Court denied CHP's motion because the sought release was
4 exceedingly overbroad in both time and scope. CHP has failed to appropriately narrow the scope
5 of the subpoena, such that Ridge should not be forced to authorize the release of all of his
6 treatment records with Kay Williams, MFT.
7 After losing its first motion to compel Ridge to sign away his private records, CHP
8 served a second records subpoena on Ms. Williams. This subpoena, in spite ofthis Court's prior
9 ruling, still has no subject matter limitation whatsoever. It seeks -
10 "Any and all therapy records from January 1, 2016, through the present date,
11 only, regarding DAVID BRET RIDGE including but not limited to any records of
12 consultation, examination or treatment of DAVID BRET RIDGE."
13 (Declaration of James F. Curran in Support ofDefendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second
14 Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena, and For
15 Sanctions^ ["Curran Decl."], Exhibit 6.) Put differently, the subpoena is not limited to
16 depression, anxiety, or any other emotional injury Ridge has tendered at issue in this case—it
17 concems anything regarding Ridge (which, in all likelihood, means that CHP would obtain
18 documents chiefly conceming his family life and marriage). This flies directly in the face of the
19 Court's prior mling, which held, inter alia, that a subpoena "which seek[s] records potentially
20 related to any mental health condition or treatment from Ms. Williams, is not [appropriate]."
21 (September 26, 2022 minute order, p. 4.) While CHP took some years off the subpoena (an
22 illusory concession, since Ridge wasn't even in treatment with Ms. Williams until 2018), the
23 subpoena still seeks, essentially, all records regarding Ridge.
24
25
26
27 - The reference in the title of this document to a request for sanctions appears to have been made in error. Nowhere
in Defendant's moving papers are monetary sanctions requested.
28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second
Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena
Page 2 of4
1 Additionally, the release that CHP would have Ridge sign is just as overly broad with
2 regard to subject matter: It would release "Any and all therapy and treatment records from
3 January 1, 2018, through the present date, only, regarding DAVID BRET RIDGE." (See
4 Proposed Order Granting Defendant CHP's Second Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Signature on
5 Authorization Form for Release of Treatment Records by Therapist Kay Williams, Exhibit 1.)
6 This is just as broad, if not more so, than the subpoena itself
7 CHP continues to exceed the bounds of discovery and to intrude impermissibly upon
8 Ridge's right to medical privacy, as well as the patient-psychotherapist privilege. (See Evid.
9 Code, § 1010 et seq.) As the Court recognized previously, the right to privacy in medical records
10 has long been recognized. (See Cal. Const., art. 1, § 1.) Clearly, Ridge has a reasonable
11 expectation of privacy in his medical records. (See, e.g.. Hill v. Nat'l Collgiate Athletic Assn.
12 (1994) 7 Cal.3d \; Board of Med. Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669,
13 678.) The invasion of Ridge's medical and psychiatric privacy, as attempted now by CHP, is just
14 as obvious as the last go-round. CHP wants all treatment records from Ms. Williams, a marriage
15 andfamily therapist.
16 Yet CHP has not demonstrated a compelling need for the records, given that it seeks all
17 records regardless of subject matter. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5"^ 531, 557.)
18 CHP has not demonstrated, with evidence, that it cannot obtain the sought infonnation through
19 less intrusive means of discovery, such as depositions. {Board of Trustees v. Superior Court
20 (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525-526.) Just because Ridge has alleged certain emotional injuries
21 as caused by Defendant does not mean that all of his past medical history is discoverable. {Britt
22 V. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849; see also In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 435.)
23 As the Court noted before, "Ms. Williams is a family and marriage counselor, which means that
24 there are likely documents in her possession that have nothing to do with any issue that Plaintiff
25 has tendered in this case related to the anxiety, depression, or emotional distress Plaintiff alleged
26 CHP caused." (September 26, 2022 minute order, p. 4.) Yet again, CHP has failed to
27 demonstrate that this unlimited request seeks information that is directly relevant and essential to
28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second
Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena
Page 3 of 4
1 a fair resolution of the lawsuit, but is rather speculating that some portion of the records might be
2 relevant to some substantive issue. (See Britt at pp. 859-860; Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7
3 CaI.App.4"^ 1008, 1017.)
4 Finally, the motion seeks relief which, insofar as the undersigned can tell, is not
5 authorized by law. The proposed order would demand that the undersigned ^^cause" his client to
6 authorize the release of the sought records, and shall also "facilitate the prompt production by
7 Ms. Williams" of the sought medical records. CHP does not, however, explain how a litigant's
8 attomey is empowered to force his client to sign a release or force a therapist to release
9 documents.
10 For the foregoing reasons, CHP's motion should be denied in full.
11 ///
12 DATED: November 15, 2022 MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
13
14 By_
JOHN P. BRISCOE
15 Attomeys for Plaintiff
16 DAVID RIDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second
Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena
Page 4 of 4
Ridge V. California Highway Patrol, et al.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
1, the undersigned, certify and declare as follows:
3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2453
Grand Canal Boulevard, Stockton, Caiifomia 95207 that is located in the county where the mailing
4 and/or delivery below took place.
5 On November 15, 2022, I served the following document:
6 PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
7 SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
8 addressed to:
9 James F. Curran
Deputy Attomey General
10 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
11 James.Curranfgjdoj.ca.gov
Christopher Irby
12 Christopher.irbvfSldoj.ca.gov
13 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: I am readily familiar with
the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for
14 mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is
deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.
15 On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, Caiifomia a copy of the document
described above was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope,
16 with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or entities mentioned above; and that
envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice.
17
0 BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified
18 below, I caused a copy of the document(s) described above to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail
address(es) listed above. My business e-mail address is lrilev(S)mavallaw.com. 1 did not receive,
19 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
20
1 certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiifomia that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22 Executed on November 15, 2022, at Lodi, Caiifomia.
23
24 LINDS/^ RILEV'SHIELDS
25
26
27
PROOF OF SERVICE - 1
28
Preview
JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690) jbriscoe@mavallaw.com 2 MAYALL H U R L E Y P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard 3 Stockton, California 95207-8253 4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge 6 SUPERIOR COURT QF T H E STATE QF CALIFORNIA 7 8 IN AND FOR T H E COUNTY QF SACRAMENTO 9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual. Case No.: 34-2019-00265393 10 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 11 vs. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 12 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL 13 and DOES 1-100, inclusive. SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH 14 Defendants. SUBPOENA 15 Date: December 2022 16 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 53 17 Res.: 2690025 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge") submits the following Memorandum of Points and 22 Authorities in opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's' Second Motion to Compel 23 Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena, and for Sanctions. 24 25 26 27 Referred to herein as "Defendant" or "CHP." 28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena Page 1 of 4 1 This is the second time that CHP has sought an order compelling Ridge to authorize a 2 tremendously broad release of his private, medical and psychiatric records from his marriage and 3 family therapist. Last time, the Court denied CHP's motion because the sought release was 4 exceedingly overbroad in both time and scope. CHP has failed to appropriately narrow the scope 5 of the subpoena, such that Ridge should not be forced to authorize the release of all of his 6 treatment records with Kay Williams, MFT. 7 After losing its first motion to compel Ridge to sign away his private records, CHP 8 served a second records subpoena on Ms. Williams. This subpoena, in spite ofthis Court's prior 9 ruling, still has no subject matter limitation whatsoever. It seeks - 10 "Any and all therapy records from January 1, 2016, through the present date, 11 only, regarding DAVID BRET RIDGE including but not limited to any records of 12 consultation, examination or treatment of DAVID BRET RIDGE." 13 (Declaration of James F. Curran in Support ofDefendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second 14 Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena, and For 15 Sanctions^ ["Curran Decl."], Exhibit 6.) Put differently, the subpoena is not limited to 16 depression, anxiety, or any other emotional injury Ridge has tendered at issue in this case—it 17 concems anything regarding Ridge (which, in all likelihood, means that CHP would obtain 18 documents chiefly conceming his family life and marriage). This flies directly in the face of the 19 Court's prior mling, which held, inter alia, that a subpoena "which seek[s] records potentially 20 related to any mental health condition or treatment from Ms. Williams, is not [appropriate]." 21 (September 26, 2022 minute order, p. 4.) While CHP took some years off the subpoena (an 22 illusory concession, since Ridge wasn't even in treatment with Ms. Williams until 2018), the 23 subpoena still seeks, essentially, all records regarding Ridge. 24 25 26 27 - The reference in the title of this document to a request for sanctions appears to have been made in error. Nowhere in Defendant's moving papers are monetary sanctions requested. 28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena Page 2 of4 1 Additionally, the release that CHP would have Ridge sign is just as overly broad with 2 regard to subject matter: It would release "Any and all therapy and treatment records from 3 January 1, 2018, through the present date, only, regarding DAVID BRET RIDGE." (See 4 Proposed Order Granting Defendant CHP's Second Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Signature on 5 Authorization Form for Release of Treatment Records by Therapist Kay Williams, Exhibit 1.) 6 This is just as broad, if not more so, than the subpoena itself 7 CHP continues to exceed the bounds of discovery and to intrude impermissibly upon 8 Ridge's right to medical privacy, as well as the patient-psychotherapist privilege. (See Evid. 9 Code, § 1010 et seq.) As the Court recognized previously, the right to privacy in medical records 10 has long been recognized. (See Cal. Const., art. 1, § 1.) Clearly, Ridge has a reasonable 11 expectation of privacy in his medical records. (See, e.g.. Hill v. Nat'l Collgiate Athletic Assn. 12 (1994) 7 Cal.3d \; Board of Med. Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 13 678.) The invasion of Ridge's medical and psychiatric privacy, as attempted now by CHP, is just 14 as obvious as the last go-round. CHP wants all treatment records from Ms. Williams, a marriage 15 andfamily therapist. 16 Yet CHP has not demonstrated a compelling need for the records, given that it seeks all 17 records regardless of subject matter. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5"^ 531, 557.) 18 CHP has not demonstrated, with evidence, that it cannot obtain the sought infonnation through 19 less intrusive means of discovery, such as depositions. {Board of Trustees v. Superior Court 20 (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525-526.) Just because Ridge has alleged certain emotional injuries 21 as caused by Defendant does not mean that all of his past medical history is discoverable. {Britt 22 V. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 849; see also In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 435.) 23 As the Court noted before, "Ms. Williams is a family and marriage counselor, which means that 24 there are likely documents in her possession that have nothing to do with any issue that Plaintiff 25 has tendered in this case related to the anxiety, depression, or emotional distress Plaintiff alleged 26 CHP caused." (September 26, 2022 minute order, p. 4.) Yet again, CHP has failed to 27 demonstrate that this unlimited request seeks information that is directly relevant and essential to 28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena Page 3 of 4 1 a fair resolution of the lawsuit, but is rather speculating that some portion of the records might be 2 relevant to some substantive issue. (See Britt at pp. 859-860; Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 3 CaI.App.4"^ 1008, 1017.) 4 Finally, the motion seeks relief which, insofar as the undersigned can tell, is not 5 authorized by law. The proposed order would demand that the undersigned ^^cause" his client to 6 authorize the release of the sought records, and shall also "facilitate the prompt production by 7 Ms. Williams" of the sought medical records. CHP does not, however, explain how a litigant's 8 attomey is empowered to force his client to sign a release or force a therapist to release 9 documents. 10 For the foregoing reasons, CHP's motion should be denied in full. 11 /// 12 DATED: November 15, 2022 MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 13 14 By_ JOHN P. BRISCOE 15 Attomeys for Plaintiff 16 DAVID RIDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol's Second Motion to Compel Signature on Authorization Form and Compliance With Subpoena Page 4 of 4 Ridge V. California Highway Patrol, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 1, the undersigned, certify and declare as follows: 3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Stockton, Caiifomia 95207 that is located in the county where the mailing 4 and/or delivery below took place. 5 On November 15, 2022, I served the following document: 6 PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL 7 SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA 8 addressed to: 9 James F. Curran Deputy Attomey General 10 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 11 James.Curranfgjdoj.ca.gov Christopher Irby 12 Christopher.irbvfSldoj.ca.gov 13 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for 14 mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. 15 On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, Caiifomia a copy of the document described above was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, 16 with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or entities mentioned above; and that envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice. 17 0 BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified 18 below, I caused a copy of the document(s) described above to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed above. My business e-mail address is lrilev(S)mavallaw.com. 1 did not receive, 19 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 1 certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiifomia that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 Executed on November 15, 2022, at Lodi, Caiifomia. 23 24 LINDS/^ RILEV'SHIELDS 25 26 27 PROOF OF SERVICE - 1 28