Preview
1 Jason B. Javaheri, Esq., SBN 256173
Yosi Yahoudai, Esq., SBN 250679
2 Alexander B. Boris, Esq., SBN 313195
Parham Nikfarjam, Esq., SBN 311634
3 JAVAHERI & YAHOUDAI
A Professional Law Corporation
4 1880 Century Park East, Suite 717
Los Angeles, CA 90067
5 Telephone: (310) 407-0766
Facsimile: (310) 407-0767
6 Email: alex@jnylaw.com
eServe: teamab@jnylaw.com
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff, SANDEE RODRIGUEZ
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY – MONTEREY COURTHOUSE
11
12
SANDEE RODRIGUEZ, an Individual, Case No.: 22CV000177
13 Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Judge
Plaintiff, Thomas W. Wills in Dept. 15
14
vs. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
15
GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED; MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S
16
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR
Inclusive, PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND
17
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
18 Defendants. THINGS TO WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE
MARCUS, PA; MEMORANDUM OF
19 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
20
DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER B.
BORIS, ESQ.; REQUEST FOR
21 SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
22
$2,700.00 AGAINST DEFENDANTS
AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD;
23 [PROPOSED] ORDER
24
HEARING DATE/TIME:
25 Date: March 15, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
26 Location: Monterey Superior Court, Dept. 15
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 TO DEFENDANTS HEREIN AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 15, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
3 the matter may be heard in Department 15 of the Monterey County Superior Court, located at
4 1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, CA 93940, Plaintiff SANDEE RODRIGUEZ, by and through
5 her attorneys of record, will move the court for an order Quashing the Deposition Subpoena for
6 Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Witness Eduardo Jose
7 Marcus, PA (on behalf of Laurel Internal Medicine Clinic) requested and issued by counsel for
8 Defendant GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED (“Defendant”), and their attorneys
9 of record at, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, for witness testimony and production of
10 Plaintiff’s privileged medical records, including mental health and substance abuse records.
11 This motion is made on the grounds that Defendant’s deposition subpoena: (1) Invades
12 Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and represents an unnecessarily invasive fishing
13 expedition, and is (2) overly broad as to time, scope and the subject matter of the testimony and
14 medical records being sought.
15 The subpoena at issue is for witness testimony and production of medical records from
16 the following witness and corresponding medical facility:
17 1. EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA (ON BEHALF OF LAUREL
18 INTERNAL MEDICINE CLINIC)
19 Plaintiff will further move this Court for an order that Defendants and their Attorneys
20
of Record, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, pay sanctions in the amount of $2,700.00 to
21
Plaintiff’s counsel for reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the
22
preparation of this motion. The request for an award of reasonable expenses and attorneys’
23
fees is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2 on the grounds that:
24
1. Defendant has displayed an overall abuse of the discovery process with
25
behavior that clearly falls short of good faith;
26
2. Defendant has no reason to seek Plaintiff’s medical records relating to mental
27
health and/or substance abuse;
28
3. Lastly, Defendants have no substantial justification for opposing this motion
2
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 which itself justifies sanctions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.020;
2 The Motion will be based upon this motion, the memorandum of points and authorities,
3 the declaration of Alexander B. Boris, separate statement and all pleadings, records and files
4 herein, all applicable statutory or case law, all matters of which this Court is requested to or
5 may take judicial notice of, and upon such other, further, oral, documentary or evidentiary
6 authority or argument as may be permitted by the Court at the time of hearing. For the
7 foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectively requests this Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to
8 Quash, and award sanctions against Defendant and their counsel of record.
9
10 Dated: December 21, 2023 JAVAHERI & YAHOUDAI, APLC
11
~/W)
12 By:
13
YOSI YAHOUDAI, ESQ.
ALEXANDER B. BORIS, ESQ.
14 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SANDEE RODRIGUEZ
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 We have been here before. Plaintiff Sandee Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) originally filed
4 Motions to Quash psychological and substance records, including one directed to the same
5 medical provider in dispute through this instant motion, (Laurel Internal Medicine Clinic) on
6 June 2, 2023. Defendant Gawfco Enterprises Incorporated’s (“Defendant”) new counsel then
7 agreed to withdraw the Subpoenas, and Plaintiff agreed to then withdraw the Motion to Quash
8 in exchange. Further, on December 4, 2023, Defendant had a new Subpoena issued to Laurel
9 Internal Medicine Clinic and again agreed to withdraw it, through the meet and confer process.
10 Defendant continues to seek records that are wholly unrelated to the instant litigation and
11 invade Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
12 On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff slipped and fell at Defendant’s premises, located at
13 1040 El Camino Real, Prunendale, California 93907 (the “Premises”), as a result of
14 Defendant’s employee mopping the floors directly behind her, without warning. Defendant
15 sustained injury to her lower back, which resulted in a two-level lumbar fusion surgery. This
16 Motion to Quash is sought because Defendant seeks to obtain private and overbroad medical
17 records that include mental health and substance abuse records. “The right of
18 privacy…protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive
19 information regarding one's personal life.” Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th
20
997, 1003 04 (citations omitted); Cobb v. Sup.Ct. (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 543, 550. The
21
request for mental health and/or substance abuse records are not relevant to the instant
22
litigation, and Defendant has not made any representations, or produced any records through
23
litigation that would somehow allow Defendant to invade the high constitutional protection of
24
privacy.
25
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena for Personal
26
Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Eduardo Jose Marcus, PA should be
27
granted.
28
4
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 On November 22, 2023, Defendant served a copy of its Deposition Subpoena for
3 Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Eduardo Jose Marcus, PA
4 (erroneously omitting the name of the associated medical facility which is LAUREL
5 INTERNAL MEDICINE CLINIC) with a personal appearance and production date of January
6 8, 2024 (the “Subpoena). The Subpoena includes requests for testimony and production of
7 mental health and substance abuse records, including the following broad language:
8 All documents and records stored in any format or method including, but not
9
limited to, all medical records, intake forms, patient completed forms and/or
documents, correspondence, all office records, emergency room records or
10 reports, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, lien files, SOAP notes,
pathology records and reports, lab reports, pharmacy and prescription
11 records, physical therapy records, sign-in sheets, all descriptions of exercises
12
prescribed, documentation which indicate date and time of patient's
appointments, insurance documents, all radiology reports and readings, and
13 any other documents maintained pertaining to the care, treatment and
examination of the patient; and
14
15 All itemized statements of the billing charges and/or consolidated statement of
benefits, with diagnostic and procedure codes including all CPT and ICD-
16 9/ICD-l O coding and all HCF A, UB04 and UB92 bills, to include the total
charges private or governmental; any amounts written off by the provider,
17
and any amounts that are the patient's responsibility and explanation of
18 benefits, payment history, records of any liens, any insurance billing or
payments information, emergency room physicians bills and radiology billing
19 from all sources to include any computer generated billing or billing stored in
any format and payment software that contains said information; and
20
21 COPIES of all original x-ray films, CT scans, MRls and any other scans or
images taken and/or maintained, including a comprehensive list of all dates
22 and body parts of all films, CT scans, MRls and all other images or scans
provided. All images and films' must be provided on CD if available
23
24 (Declaration of Alexander Boris (“Boris Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. “A”). The documents requested
25 through the Subpoena include extremely broad language which fails to incorporate a limit in
26 time, or exclusion of substance abuse and mental health records.
27 On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter with corresponding
28 objections to Defendant’s counsel, the document custodian and the witness/corresponding
5
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 medical facility regarding Defendant’s Subpoena. The objections describe the underlying
2 dispute with legal authority for Plaintiff’s position regarding the Subpoena and the irrelevant
3 and sensitive information requested through the Subpoena. This correspondence included a
4 request for Defendant to withdraw their Subpoena to avoid this instant motion. Boris Decl. ¶ 3,
5 Ex. “B”.
6 On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel
7 by telephone, at which time Defendant made its position known that they would not be
8 voluntarily withdrawing the Subpoena and the instant motion was necessary. Boris Decl. ¶ 4
9 On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed the details of the telephone
10 conversation with Defendant’s counsel through an email. On the same day, Defendant’s
11 counsel confirmed the agreement through email correspondence. Boris Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. “C”).
12 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
13 A. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA FOR TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION
14
OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS SHOULD BE QUASHED
BECAUSE THEY UNREASONABLY INVADE PLAINTIFF’S PRIVACY
15 AND THERE IS NO COMPELLING NEED FOR THIS TESTIMONY
AND THESE RECORDS
16
17 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1987.1 and 1985.3(g), the Plaintiff may
18 seek an order from this Court quashing Defendant’s Subpoena. In ruling on Plaintiff’s motion,
19 this Court may make an order “quashing the Subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing
20 compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including
21 protective orders.” The Court may also enter a protective order under California Code of Civil
22 Procedure § 2017.020(a) limiting the scope of discovery “if it determines that
23 the…intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information
24 sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
25 Plaintiff has an “inalienable right of privacy” provided by Calif. Const. Art. 1, § 1. Britt
26 v. Sup.Ct. (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 855 856. The right to privacy
27 is also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 484;
28 Palay v. Sup.Ct. (County of Los Angeles) (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 919, 931.
6
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 “As our Supreme Court has recently explained, ‘[i]n many contexts, the scope and
2 application of the state constitutional right of privacy is broader and more protective of privacy
3 than the [implied] federal constitutional right of privacy as interpreted by the federal courts.
4 [Citations.]’” American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 307, 326, 66
5 Cal.Rptr.2d 210, 940 P.2d 797. This provision creates a zone of privacy which protects against
6 unwarranted compelled disclosure of certain private information. (Citations.).” Planned
7 Parenthood Golden Gate v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 347, 357.
8 “The right of privacy…protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of
9 various private or sensitive information regarding one's personal life…including his or her
10 financial affairs…political affiliations…medical history…sexual relationships…and
11 confidential personnel information.” Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 997,
12 1003 04 (citations omitted); Cobb v. Sup.Ct. (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 543, 550. The intrusion is
13 great because the request is not limited to exclude mental health records and substance abuse
14 records.
15 Further, the Subpoena seeks information which is irrelevant to the subject matter, or the
16 information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
17 Cembrook v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423; CBS vs. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d
18 12. Since this request is not narrowed in scope and does not deal with the direct subject matter
19 of this incident, the witness testimony, medical records and correspondence do not directly
20
pertain to Plaintiff’s claimed injuries being sought and attributed to this action.
21
The Subpoena seeks to unreasonably access Plaintiff’s personal medical information and
22
records, without any limitation as to exclusion of records relating to mental health and
23
substance abuse. Therefore, such a document request is improper and has the potential of
24
creating prejudice towards the Plaintiff through a document request that has no relevancy to the
25
physical injuries claimed in this action.
26
B. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA FOR TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION
27 OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS SHOULD BE QUASHED
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY
28 CLAIMS
7
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 Defendant fails to show the relevancy for Plaintiff’s private medical records relating to
2 mental health and substance abuse records, if any, establish a compelling need for the private
3 records; narrowly confine their request so that they’re not without reasonable limitation in its
4 scope.
5 An implicit waiver of privacy rights encompasses “only discovery directly relevant to
6 the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” Davis v. Superior
7 Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014. Plaintiff’s general medical history is not discoverable.
8 Britt v. Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port District) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.
9 Confidential personnel files are protected by the constitutional right of privacy. Board of
10 Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528.
11 Defendant fails to show the relevancy for Plaintiff’s mental health and substance abuse
12 records and fails to establish a compelling need for the private records. Defendant has further
13 failed to narrowly confine their request so that they are not without reasonable limitation in its
14 scope, including time, mental health, and substance abuse records.
15 “Discovery of constitutionally protected information is on a par with discovery of
16 privileged information and is more narrowly proscribed than traditional discovery.” Tylo v.
17 Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1387, 1390-1391 (trial court in a wrongful
18 termination case abused its discretion in ordering former employee to answer questions relating
19 to her marital relationship). “Because the requested material is constitutionally protected, the
20
ordinary yardstick for discoverability, i.e., that the information sought may lead to relevant
21
evidence, is inapplicable.” Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 377,
22
392; see also Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, supra, (appellate court reversed discovery
23
order requiring staff members of family planning nonprofit organization to reveal home
24
addresses and telephone numbers to anti-abortion litigants; discovery proponents “have not
25
demonstrated a need for the discovery which would justify an invasion of the substantial
26
privacy interests involved”).
27
In other words, where private records are sought in discovery, the burden is on the party
28
seeking the constitutionally protected information [the Defendant] to establish that it is entitled
8
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 to the protected information. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1017. In
2 order to justify the subpoenas, as presently written, Defendant has the burden to (but cannot)
3 demonstrate that:
4 (1) the information/records sought are directly relevant to the issues in this case,
5 (2) there is “a compelling need for discovery, and that compelling [need is] so
6 strong as to outweigh the privacy right when these two competing interests are
7 carefully balanced”,
8 (3) the scope is narrowly circumscribed and by the least intrusive manner, and
9 (4) the information is not available from other sources or by less intrusive means.
10 Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 1839, 1853 1854; Board of Trustees v.
11 Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal. App. 3d 516, 525; Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.
12 App. 3d 447, 453. Defendant has made no such showing.
13 Speculation that records may contain relevant material is insufficient. Davis, supra, 7
14 Cal. App. 4th at 1017-1018.
15 Here, Defendants cannot satisfy their burden to show that the subpoenas issued are
16 narrowly tailored to discover information directly relevant to the case. See Lantz v. Superior
17 Court (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 1854 (“if an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed
18 necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the
19 minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective”). To answer this request would result in
20
annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression to responding party in that the question is overly
21
broad, and without reasonable limitation in its scope. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior
22
Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407; Hallendorf vs. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal. App. 3d 553. The
23
request should be limited to exclude any records relating to Plaintiff’s prior mental health
24
and substance abuse records.
25
Furthermore, Defendant’s subpoenas further seek medical records which do not pertain
26
to Plaintiff’s claimed injuries being sought through this action. Considering the glaring lack of
27
relevancy of these records, Defendants certainly cannot meet its heightened burden of showing
28
that its compelling need for these records outweighs Plaintiff’s right to privacy in them. These
9
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 records may include lists of mental health and substance abuse records which are extremely
2 and completely irrelevant to this instant case. Therefore, the intrusion is great because the
3 request is not limited by claim, nor type of records and is overbroad in scope.
4 While discovery may be “broad” in areas of privacy at issue, the party seeking
5 production has the burden to show the records are directly relevant to the actual case. It is
6 insufficient for Defendant to suspect the production might lead to admissible evidence. That
7 standard only applies when privacy is not at issue. But where privacy is at issue, as in the
8 present case, the burden is on the party seeking production to establish good cause to invade
9 the other side’s privacy.
10 The intrusion is great because the request is not limited by scope to exclude mental
11 health and/or substance abuse records. Moreover, Defendants have failed provide any
12 justification as to why these specific confidential records pertaining to Plaintiff’s mental health
13 and substance abuse records are relevant as to any of the issues of this lawsuit. Considering the
14 glaring lack of relevancy of these records, Defendants certainly cannot meet its heightened
15 burden of showing that its compelling need for these records outweighs Plaintiff’s right to
16 privacy in them. As a result, Defendants’ subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical records should be
17 quashed.
18 IV. SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED DUE TO THE ATTEMPTED INTRUSTION
19 INTO PLAINTIFF’S PRIVACY RIGHTS
20
The service of the Subpoena and its requirement for private, irrelevant, and protected
21
records, makes these requests oppressive and any opposition will be in bad faith or without
22
substantial justifications. Providing the court with proper basis to award of reasonable expenses
23
and attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2. In this instance, Defendants have
24
no justification for requesting all the records without limitation. This Court should sanction
25
Defendant and their counsel of record for the unreasonable attempt to obtain private medical
26
records without limitation.
27
Further, Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2 authorizes the awarding of reasonable
28
attorney's fees and costs incurred or expended in making a motion to quash a subpoena “if the
10
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 court finds the motion was . . . opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that
2 one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”
3 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 also states in pertinent part that: “The court may
4 impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process,
5 or any attorney advising that conduct, or both, pay the reasonable expenses, including
6 attorney’s fees incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”
7 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(a), (c), and (h) specifically states that misuses of
8 the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:
9 (a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an
10
attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of
permissible discovery.
11 (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes
unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden
12 and expense.
13
(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial
justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.
14
Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel and relayed Plaintiff’s
15
objections to the Subpoena in order to avoid court intervention. However, Defendant refused
16
to withdraw the overbroad and overreaching subpoena by choosing to disregard Plaintiff’s
17
objection. As such, Plaintiff has spent three (3) hours preparing this Motion, the Separate
18
Statement and [proposed] Order, and anticipates spending two (2) hours to prepare a reply to an
19
Defendant’s Opposition. Plaintiff also anticipates an additional one (1) hour appearing at the
20
motion hearing for a total of seven (6) hours at $450.00 per hour, for a total of $2,700.00. Boris
21
Decl. ¶ 6.
22
In the interest of justice and good faith in representation of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel
23
was left with no alternative but to file this instant Motion to protect Plaintiff’s right to privacy,
24
which greatly outweighs Defendant’s need for these records. Therefore, monetary sanctions
25
should be imposed against Defendant and their attorneys of record for misuse of the discovery
26
process and for compelling the need for Plaintiff to file this instant Motion in the amount of
27
$2,700.00.
28
11
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 V. CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to issue the following
3 Order:
4 1. Sustain Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoenas for
5 Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Witness Eduardo Jose
6 Marcus, PA in its entirety, or in the alternative, for a Protective Order, or an Order modifying
7 the Subpoenas to limit the time frame of records to 10 years prior to the subject incident to the
8 present, while excluding any records relating to Plaintiff’s mental health and substance abuse
9 treatment records, and
10 2. Award sanctions against Defendant and their counsel of record, for the
11 necessity in bringing this instant motion.
12
13 Dated: December 21, 2023 JAVAHERI & YAHOUDAI, APLC
14
15 By:
16
YOSI YAHOUDAI, ESQ.
ALEXANDER B. BORIS, ESQ.
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SANDEE RODRIGUEZ
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER B. BORIS
2 I, Alexander B. Boris, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California, and I am an
4 associate attorney at Javaheri and Yahoudai, APLC, counsel of record for Plaintiff Sandee
5 Rodriguez, in this action. I am responsible for the handling of this case and, as such, have
6 personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. If called upon to testify to the facts stated herein,
7 I could competently testify to the matters as stated herein.
8 2. On November 22, 2023, Defendant served a copy of its Deposition Subpoena for
9 Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Eduardo Jose Marcus, PA
10 (erroneously omitting the name of the associated medical facility which is LAUREL
11 INTERNAL MEDICINE CLINIC) with a personal appearance and production date of January
12 8, 2024 (“Subpoena”). A true and correct copy of the aforementioned Deposition Subpoena is
13 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.
14 3. On December 12, 2023, I, by and through my Paralegal, served Plaintiff’s meet and
15 confer and objections letter to Defendant’s counsel, the document custodian and the
16 witness/corresponding medical facility regarding Defendant’s Subpoena. A true and correct
17 copy of Plaintiff’s December 12, 2023 meet and confer and objections letter is attached hereto
18 as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference.
19 4. On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel
20 by telephone, at which time Defendant made its position known that they would not be
21 voluntarily withdrawing the Subpoena and the instant motion was necessary.
22 5. On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed the details of the telephone
23 conversation with Defendant’s counsel through an email. On the same day, Defendant’s
24 counsel confirmed the agreement through email correspondence. The email correspondence is
25 attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference.
26 6. I have been practicing law for over 10 years. I earned my undergraduate degree from
27 Yeshiva University in New York with a bachelor’s in economics. I graduated from the
28 University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law. My rate of $450/hr. is reasonable with
13
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 someone of my expertise and experience. I have spent three (3) hours preparing this motion
2 and separate statement. I anticipate spending another two (2) hours to reply to an opposition
3 and expect to spend an additional one (1) hour appearing at the motion hearing which brings
4 the total to six (6) hours at $450.00 per hour, for a total of $2,700.00. Sanctions against
5 Defendant and their attorneys of record is appropriate.
6 I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws
7 of the State of California.
8 Executed on December 21, 2023 at Los Angeles County, California.
9
10 ________________________________
Alexander B. Boris, Esq.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
EXHIBIT “A”
1mmn1mmmummm
*CA1147291*
JAVAHERI & YAHOUDAI
1880 CENTURY PARKE, #717
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ATTN: ALEXANDER B. BORIS
CASE NAME: SANDEE RODRIGUEZ v GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
FILE NO:
CA1147291-001 SUBP-020
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
RACHEL T. VELILLA (Bar# 276112)
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1100
IRVINE, CA 92614
TELEPHONE NO.: 949-255-6950 FAX NO. (Optlonaf): 949-474-2060
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Opl/onaf):
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
STREET ADDRESS: 1200 AGUAJITO ROAD
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY ANO ZIP CODE: MONTEREY, 93940
BRANCH NAME: MONTEREY SUPERIOR
PLAINTIFF/ PEITIONER: SANDEE RODRIGUEZ
DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT: GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
CASE NUMBER:
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 22CV000177
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, If known):
WITNESS,
EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1441 CONSTITUTION BLVD. BLDG. 151, SALINAS, CA 93906
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action at the followin date time and lace:
Date: 01/08/2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. Address: Remote- Videoconference deposition, Videoconference
de osition CA 00000 • :"?:
a. D As a deponent who Is nqt a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as
to the matters described in item 2. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.)
b. !i1 ·vou are ordered to produce the documents and things described in item 3.
C. !i1 This deposition will be recorded stenographically D through the Instant visual display of testimony
l and by D audio.-tap~ D videotape.
1: d. D This videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d).
I
2. The personal attendance of the custodian or other.qualified witness and the production of the original records are required by this
i·· subpoena. The procedure by Evidence Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this
'. ' subpoena. • • •
~- The documents and things to be produced· and any testing or sampling being sought are described as follows:
!
li1 Continued on Attachment 3.
4·,• If the witness is a representative of a business or other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are described i
I
as follows: • ;
l
I
i
i- D Continued on Attachmen, 4
5. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER !
l • CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDU~E: SECTION 1985.3 OR 198S.6 AND A'MOTION TO QUASH OR ·AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN ..... l
- .. SERVED ON YOU~ A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE
' ! : , AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYE.E RECORDS.
6. At the deposition, you will be asked questions under oath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographlcally at the deposition: later they are
transcribed for possible use at trial. You'may read the written record and change any Incorrect answers before you sign the deposition. You are entitled
to receive witness fees ·and mileage actually traveled both ways: The money must be paid, at the option of the party gMng notice of the deposition,
e{ther. with service of thfs subpoena or at the time of the deposition. Unless the court orders or you agree otherwise, If you are being deposed as an• '
Individual, the deposition must take place within 75 miles of your residence or within 150 miles of your residence it the deposition will be taken within the '
t;ounty of the court where the action Is pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section '
2025.250.
. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: 11/22/2023
------------
RACHEL T. VELILLA ► ISi RACHEL T. VELILLA
(TYPE OR PRI~ NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
(TITLE)
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 7:52 PM
To: Alex Boris; Aaron Alexander; records@compexlegal.com
Cc: Christie Noble; 'Cynthia Cruz'
Subject: RE: Sandee Rodriguez v. GAWFCO - Objections to Subpoenas - Compex Work Order
No. CA1132148 - DO NOT PRODUCE
Confirmed. Compex please WITHDRAW CA1132148-033 Laurel Internal Medicine Clinic and do not reissue.
Thanks,
RACHEL T. VELILLA | Partner
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI / GRSM50
YOUR 50 STATE LAW FIRM™
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
D: 949-526-8280 | rvelilla@grsm.com
www.grsm.com
vCard
From: Alex Boris
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 11:18 AM
To: Rachel Velilla ; Aaron Alexander ; records@compexlegal.com
Cc: Christie Noble ; 'Cynthia Cruz'
Subject: Re: Sandee Rodriguez v. GAWFCO - Objections to Subpoenas - Compex Work Order No. CA1132148 -
DO NOT PRODUCE
Hi Rachel, Per our meet and confer conversation, you are withdrawin g Su bpoena 033, Laural Internal Medicine Clinic, and we wi ll be movin g forward with the Motion to Quash on subpoena to the psych p hysician. If th is does not co mport t o your
Hi Rachel,
Per our meet and confer conversation, you are withdrawing Subpoena 033, Laural Internal
Medicine Clinic, and we will be moving forward with the Motion to Quash on subpoena to the
psych physician. If this does not comport to your understanding, please advise immediately.
Aaron will be following up regarding the deposition of Christine Moore on a separate email chain.
Thank you,
Alex
Alexander B. Boris, Esq.
1
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Sandee Rodriguez vs. Gawfco Enterprises, Incorporated, et. al.
2
Superior Court of California, County of Monterey
3 Case No. 22CV000177
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
5
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
6 eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1880 Century Park
East, Suite 717, Los Angeles, CA 90067.
7
8
On December 21, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF’S
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION
9 SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND THINGS TO WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA; MEMORANDUM OF
10
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER B. BORIS, ESQ.;
11 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,700.00 AGAINST
DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD; [PROPOSED] ORDER,
12 on the interested parties listed to this action, addressed as follows:
13
[SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST]
14
(XX) BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to California
15 Rules of Court, Rule 2.251 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(a)(2), (4) and (5), I caused a
16
copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address aaron@jnylaw.com to the persons at the
e-mail addresses listed on the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
17 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was not
successful.
18
19 (XX) BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the aforementioned documents in an
envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at
20 the address(es) identified on the “Service List”. I placed the envelope or package for collection
and overnight delivery in accordance with usual and customary business practices for collecting
21
or regularly utilizing drop boxes for the overnight delivery carrier.
22
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct. Executed on this 21st day of December, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
24
25
26 ________________________________
Aaron Alexander
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL
APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
1 SERVICE LIST
Sandee Rodriguez vs. Gawfco Enterprises, Incorporated, et. al.
2
Superior Court of California, County of Monterey
3 Case No. 22CV000177
4 VIA EMAIL:
5
Rachel T. Velilla, Esq.
Gordon Recs Scully Mansukhani
6 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
7 Tel.: (949) 526-8280
8
Fax: (949) 474-2060
Email: rvelilla@grsm.com
9 cnoble@grsm.com
10
Attorney for Defendant, GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
11
VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY:
12
Compex Legal Services, Inc.
13 325 Maple Avenue
Torrance, CA 90503
14
Email: records@compexlegal.com
15 cynthia.cruz@compexlegal.com
16
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY:
17 Eduardo Jose Marcus, PA
18
Laurel Internal Medicine Clinic
1441 Constitution Blvd., Bldg 151, Suite 16
19 Salinas, CA 93906
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL
APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA
Preview
1 Jason B. Javaheri, Esq., SBN 256173 Yosi Yahoudai, Esq., SBN 250679 2 Alexander B. Boris, Esq., SBN 313195 Parham Nikfarjam, Esq., SBN 311634 3 JAVAHERI & YAHOUDAI A Professional Law Corporation 4 1880 Century Park East, Suite 717 Los Angeles, CA 90067 5 Telephone: (310) 407-0766 Facsimile: (310) 407-0767 6 Email: alex@jnylaw.com eServe: teamab@jnylaw.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SANDEE RODRIGUEZ 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY – MONTEREY COURTHOUSE 11 12 SANDEE RODRIGUEZ, an Individual, Case No.: 22CV000177 13 Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Judge Plaintiff, Thomas W. Wills in Dept. 15 14 vs. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND 15 GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED; MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S 16 PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR Inclusive, PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND 17 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 18 Defendants. THINGS TO WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA; MEMORANDUM OF 19 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 20 DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER B. BORIS, ESQ.; REQUEST FOR 21 SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 22 $2,700.00 AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD; 23 [PROPOSED] ORDER 24 HEARING DATE/TIME: 25 Date: March 15, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. 26 Location: Monterey Superior Court, Dept. 15 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 TO DEFENDANTS HEREIN AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 15, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as 3 the matter may be heard in Department 15 of the Monterey County Superior Court, located at 4 1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, CA 93940, Plaintiff SANDEE RODRIGUEZ, by and through 5 her attorneys of record, will move the court for an order Quashing the Deposition Subpoena for 6 Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Witness Eduardo Jose 7 Marcus, PA (on behalf of Laurel Internal Medicine Clinic) requested and issued by counsel for 8 Defendant GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED (“Defendant”), and their attorneys 9 of record at, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, for witness testimony and production of 10 Plaintiff’s privileged medical records, including mental health and substance abuse records. 11 This motion is made on the grounds that Defendant’s deposition subpoena: (1) Invades 12 Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and represents an unnecessarily invasive fishing 13 expedition, and is (2) overly broad as to time, scope and the subject matter of the testimony and 14 medical records being sought. 15 The subpoena at issue is for witness testimony and production of medical records from 16 the following witness and corresponding medical facility: 17 1. EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA (ON BEHALF OF LAUREL 18 INTERNAL MEDICINE CLINIC) 19 Plaintiff will further move this Court for an order that Defendants and their Attorneys 20 of Record, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, pay sanctions in the amount of $2,700.00 to 21 Plaintiff’s counsel for reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the 22 preparation of this motion. The request for an award of reasonable expenses and attorneys’ 23 fees is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2 on the grounds that: 24 1. Defendant has displayed an overall abuse of the discovery process with 25 behavior that clearly falls short of good faith; 26 2. Defendant has no reason to seek Plaintiff’s medical records relating to mental 27 health and/or substance abuse; 28 3. Lastly, Defendants have no substantial justification for opposing this motion 2 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 which itself justifies sanctions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.020; 2 The Motion will be based upon this motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, 3 the declaration of Alexander B. Boris, separate statement and all pleadings, records and files 4 herein, all applicable statutory or case law, all matters of which this Court is requested to or 5 may take judicial notice of, and upon such other, further, oral, documentary or evidentiary 6 authority or argument as may be permitted by the Court at the time of hearing. For the 7 foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectively requests this Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to 8 Quash, and award sanctions against Defendant and their counsel of record. 9 10 Dated: December 21, 2023 JAVAHERI & YAHOUDAI, APLC 11 ~/W) 12 By: 13 YOSI YAHOUDAI, ESQ. ALEXANDER B. BORIS, ESQ. 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SANDEE RODRIGUEZ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 We have been here before. Plaintiff Sandee Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) originally filed 4 Motions to Quash psychological and substance records, including one directed to the same 5 medical provider in dispute through this instant motion, (Laurel Internal Medicine Clinic) on 6 June 2, 2023. Defendant Gawfco Enterprises Incorporated’s (“Defendant”) new counsel then 7 agreed to withdraw the Subpoenas, and Plaintiff agreed to then withdraw the Motion to Quash 8 in exchange. Further, on December 4, 2023, Defendant had a new Subpoena issued to Laurel 9 Internal Medicine Clinic and again agreed to withdraw it, through the meet and confer process. 10 Defendant continues to seek records that are wholly unrelated to the instant litigation and 11 invade Plaintiff’s right to privacy. 12 On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff slipped and fell at Defendant’s premises, located at 13 1040 El Camino Real, Prunendale, California 93907 (the “Premises”), as a result of 14 Defendant’s employee mopping the floors directly behind her, without warning. Defendant 15 sustained injury to her lower back, which resulted in a two-level lumbar fusion surgery. This 16 Motion to Quash is sought because Defendant seeks to obtain private and overbroad medical 17 records that include mental health and substance abuse records. “The right of 18 privacy…protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive 19 information regarding one's personal life.” Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 20 997, 1003 04 (citations omitted); Cobb v. Sup.Ct. (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 543, 550. The 21 request for mental health and/or substance abuse records are not relevant to the instant 22 litigation, and Defendant has not made any representations, or produced any records through 23 litigation that would somehow allow Defendant to invade the high constitutional protection of 24 privacy. 25 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena for Personal 26 Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Eduardo Jose Marcus, PA should be 27 granted. 28 4 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 On November 22, 2023, Defendant served a copy of its Deposition Subpoena for 3 Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Eduardo Jose Marcus, PA 4 (erroneously omitting the name of the associated medical facility which is LAUREL 5 INTERNAL MEDICINE CLINIC) with a personal appearance and production date of January 6 8, 2024 (the “Subpoena). The Subpoena includes requests for testimony and production of 7 mental health and substance abuse records, including the following broad language: 8 All documents and records stored in any format or method including, but not 9 limited to, all medical records, intake forms, patient completed forms and/or documents, correspondence, all office records, emergency room records or 10 reports, inpatient and outpatient charts and records, lien files, SOAP notes, pathology records and reports, lab reports, pharmacy and prescription 11 records, physical therapy records, sign-in sheets, all descriptions of exercises 12 prescribed, documentation which indicate date and time of patient's appointments, insurance documents, all radiology reports and readings, and 13 any other documents maintained pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of the patient; and 14 15 All itemized statements of the billing charges and/or consolidated statement of benefits, with diagnostic and procedure codes including all CPT and ICD- 16 9/ICD-l O coding and all HCF A, UB04 and UB92 bills, to include the total charges private or governmental; any amounts written off by the provider, 17 and any amounts that are the patient's responsibility and explanation of 18 benefits, payment history, records of any liens, any insurance billing or payments information, emergency room physicians bills and radiology billing 19 from all sources to include any computer generated billing or billing stored in any format and payment software that contains said information; and 20 21 COPIES of all original x-ray films, CT scans, MRls and any other scans or images taken and/or maintained, including a comprehensive list of all dates 22 and body parts of all films, CT scans, MRls and all other images or scans provided. All images and films' must be provided on CD if available 23 24 (Declaration of Alexander Boris (“Boris Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. “A”). The documents requested 25 through the Subpoena include extremely broad language which fails to incorporate a limit in 26 time, or exclusion of substance abuse and mental health records. 27 On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter with corresponding 28 objections to Defendant’s counsel, the document custodian and the witness/corresponding 5 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 medical facility regarding Defendant’s Subpoena. The objections describe the underlying 2 dispute with legal authority for Plaintiff’s position regarding the Subpoena and the irrelevant 3 and sensitive information requested through the Subpoena. This correspondence included a 4 request for Defendant to withdraw their Subpoena to avoid this instant motion. Boris Decl. ¶ 3, 5 Ex. “B”. 6 On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel 7 by telephone, at which time Defendant made its position known that they would not be 8 voluntarily withdrawing the Subpoena and the instant motion was necessary. Boris Decl. ¶ 4 9 On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed the details of the telephone 10 conversation with Defendant’s counsel through an email. On the same day, Defendant’s 11 counsel confirmed the agreement through email correspondence. Boris Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. “C”). 12 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 13 A. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA FOR TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION 14 OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS SHOULD BE QUASHED BECAUSE THEY UNREASONABLY INVADE PLAINTIFF’S PRIVACY 15 AND THERE IS NO COMPELLING NEED FOR THIS TESTIMONY AND THESE RECORDS 16 17 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1987.1 and 1985.3(g), the Plaintiff may 18 seek an order from this Court quashing Defendant’s Subpoena. In ruling on Plaintiff’s motion, 19 this Court may make an order “quashing the Subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing 20 compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including 21 protective orders.” The Court may also enter a protective order under California Code of Civil 22 Procedure § 2017.020(a) limiting the scope of discovery “if it determines that 23 the…intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information 24 sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 25 Plaintiff has an “inalienable right of privacy” provided by Calif. Const. Art. 1, § 1. Britt 26 v. Sup.Ct. (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 855 856. The right to privacy 27 is also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 484; 28 Palay v. Sup.Ct. (County of Los Angeles) (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 919, 931. 6 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 “As our Supreme Court has recently explained, ‘[i]n many contexts, the scope and 2 application of the state constitutional right of privacy is broader and more protective of privacy 3 than the [implied] federal constitutional right of privacy as interpreted by the federal courts. 4 [Citations.]’” American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 307, 326, 66 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 210, 940 P.2d 797. This provision creates a zone of privacy which protects against 6 unwarranted compelled disclosure of certain private information. (Citations.).” Planned 7 Parenthood Golden Gate v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 347, 357. 8 “The right of privacy…protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of 9 various private or sensitive information regarding one's personal life…including his or her 10 financial affairs…political affiliations…medical history…sexual relationships…and 11 confidential personnel information.” Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 997, 12 1003 04 (citations omitted); Cobb v. Sup.Ct. (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 543, 550. The intrusion is 13 great because the request is not limited to exclude mental health records and substance abuse 14 records. 15 Further, the Subpoena seeks information which is irrelevant to the subject matter, or the 16 information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 17 Cembrook v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423; CBS vs. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 18 12. Since this request is not narrowed in scope and does not deal with the direct subject matter 19 of this incident, the witness testimony, medical records and correspondence do not directly 20 pertain to Plaintiff’s claimed injuries being sought and attributed to this action. 21 The Subpoena seeks to unreasonably access Plaintiff’s personal medical information and 22 records, without any limitation as to exclusion of records relating to mental health and 23 substance abuse. Therefore, such a document request is improper and has the potential of 24 creating prejudice towards the Plaintiff through a document request that has no relevancy to the 25 physical injuries claimed in this action. 26 B. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA FOR TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION 27 OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS SHOULD BE QUASHED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY 28 CLAIMS 7 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 Defendant fails to show the relevancy for Plaintiff’s private medical records relating to 2 mental health and substance abuse records, if any, establish a compelling need for the private 3 records; narrowly confine their request so that they’re not without reasonable limitation in its 4 scope. 5 An implicit waiver of privacy rights encompasses “only discovery directly relevant to 6 the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” Davis v. Superior 7 Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014. Plaintiff’s general medical history is not discoverable. 8 Britt v. Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port District) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864. 9 Confidential personnel files are protected by the constitutional right of privacy. Board of 10 Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528. 11 Defendant fails to show the relevancy for Plaintiff’s mental health and substance abuse 12 records and fails to establish a compelling need for the private records. Defendant has further 13 failed to narrowly confine their request so that they are not without reasonable limitation in its 14 scope, including time, mental health, and substance abuse records. 15 “Discovery of constitutionally protected information is on a par with discovery of 16 privileged information and is more narrowly proscribed than traditional discovery.” Tylo v. 17 Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1387, 1390-1391 (trial court in a wrongful 18 termination case abused its discretion in ordering former employee to answer questions relating 19 to her marital relationship). “Because the requested material is constitutionally protected, the 20 ordinary yardstick for discoverability, i.e., that the information sought may lead to relevant 21 evidence, is inapplicable.” Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 377, 22 392; see also Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, supra, (appellate court reversed discovery 23 order requiring staff members of family planning nonprofit organization to reveal home 24 addresses and telephone numbers to anti-abortion litigants; discovery proponents “have not 25 demonstrated a need for the discovery which would justify an invasion of the substantial 26 privacy interests involved”). 27 In other words, where private records are sought in discovery, the burden is on the party 28 seeking the constitutionally protected information [the Defendant] to establish that it is entitled 8 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 to the protected information. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1017. In 2 order to justify the subpoenas, as presently written, Defendant has the burden to (but cannot) 3 demonstrate that: 4 (1) the information/records sought are directly relevant to the issues in this case, 5 (2) there is “a compelling need for discovery, and that compelling [need is] so 6 strong as to outweigh the privacy right when these two competing interests are 7 carefully balanced”, 8 (3) the scope is narrowly circumscribed and by the least intrusive manner, and 9 (4) the information is not available from other sources or by less intrusive means. 10 Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 1839, 1853 1854; Board of Trustees v. 11 Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal. App. 3d 516, 525; Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal. 12 App. 3d 447, 453. Defendant has made no such showing. 13 Speculation that records may contain relevant material is insufficient. Davis, supra, 7 14 Cal. App. 4th at 1017-1018. 15 Here, Defendants cannot satisfy their burden to show that the subpoenas issued are 16 narrowly tailored to discover information directly relevant to the case. See Lantz v. Superior 17 Court (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 1854 (“if an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed 18 necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the 19 minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective”). To answer this request would result in 20 annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression to responding party in that the question is overly 21 broad, and without reasonable limitation in its scope. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior 22 Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407; Hallendorf vs. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal. App. 3d 553. The 23 request should be limited to exclude any records relating to Plaintiff’s prior mental health 24 and substance abuse records. 25 Furthermore, Defendant’s subpoenas further seek medical records which do not pertain 26 to Plaintiff’s claimed injuries being sought through this action. Considering the glaring lack of 27 relevancy of these records, Defendants certainly cannot meet its heightened burden of showing 28 that its compelling need for these records outweighs Plaintiff’s right to privacy in them. These 9 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 records may include lists of mental health and substance abuse records which are extremely 2 and completely irrelevant to this instant case. Therefore, the intrusion is great because the 3 request is not limited by claim, nor type of records and is overbroad in scope. 4 While discovery may be “broad” in areas of privacy at issue, the party seeking 5 production has the burden to show the records are directly relevant to the actual case. It is 6 insufficient for Defendant to suspect the production might lead to admissible evidence. That 7 standard only applies when privacy is not at issue. But where privacy is at issue, as in the 8 present case, the burden is on the party seeking production to establish good cause to invade 9 the other side’s privacy. 10 The intrusion is great because the request is not limited by scope to exclude mental 11 health and/or substance abuse records. Moreover, Defendants have failed provide any 12 justification as to why these specific confidential records pertaining to Plaintiff’s mental health 13 and substance abuse records are relevant as to any of the issues of this lawsuit. Considering the 14 glaring lack of relevancy of these records, Defendants certainly cannot meet its heightened 15 burden of showing that its compelling need for these records outweighs Plaintiff’s right to 16 privacy in them. As a result, Defendants’ subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical records should be 17 quashed. 18 IV. SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED DUE TO THE ATTEMPTED INTRUSTION 19 INTO PLAINTIFF’S PRIVACY RIGHTS 20 The service of the Subpoena and its requirement for private, irrelevant, and protected 21 records, makes these requests oppressive and any opposition will be in bad faith or without 22 substantial justifications. Providing the court with proper basis to award of reasonable expenses 23 and attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2. In this instance, Defendants have 24 no justification for requesting all the records without limitation. This Court should sanction 25 Defendant and their counsel of record for the unreasonable attempt to obtain private medical 26 records without limitation. 27 Further, Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2 authorizes the awarding of reasonable 28 attorney's fees and costs incurred or expended in making a motion to quash a subpoena “if the 10 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 court finds the motion was . . . opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that 2 one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” 3 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 also states in pertinent part that: “The court may 4 impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, 5 or any attorney advising that conduct, or both, pay the reasonable expenses, including 6 attorney’s fees incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” 7 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(a), (c), and (h) specifically states that misuses of 8 the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: 9 (a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an 10 attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery. 11 (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden 12 and expense. 13 (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. 14 Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel and relayed Plaintiff’s 15 objections to the Subpoena in order to avoid court intervention. However, Defendant refused 16 to withdraw the overbroad and overreaching subpoena by choosing to disregard Plaintiff’s 17 objection. As such, Plaintiff has spent three (3) hours preparing this Motion, the Separate 18 Statement and [proposed] Order, and anticipates spending two (2) hours to prepare a reply to an 19 Defendant’s Opposition. Plaintiff also anticipates an additional one (1) hour appearing at the 20 motion hearing for a total of seven (6) hours at $450.00 per hour, for a total of $2,700.00. Boris 21 Decl. ¶ 6. 22 In the interest of justice and good faith in representation of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel 23 was left with no alternative but to file this instant Motion to protect Plaintiff’s right to privacy, 24 which greatly outweighs Defendant’s need for these records. Therefore, monetary sanctions 25 should be imposed against Defendant and their attorneys of record for misuse of the discovery 26 process and for compelling the need for Plaintiff to file this instant Motion in the amount of 27 $2,700.00. 28 11 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to issue the following 3 Order: 4 1. Sustain Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoenas for 5 Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Witness Eduardo Jose 6 Marcus, PA in its entirety, or in the alternative, for a Protective Order, or an Order modifying 7 the Subpoenas to limit the time frame of records to 10 years prior to the subject incident to the 8 present, while excluding any records relating to Plaintiff’s mental health and substance abuse 9 treatment records, and 10 2. Award sanctions against Defendant and their counsel of record, for the 11 necessity in bringing this instant motion. 12 13 Dated: December 21, 2023 JAVAHERI & YAHOUDAI, APLC 14 15 By: 16 YOSI YAHOUDAI, ESQ. ALEXANDER B. BORIS, ESQ. 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SANDEE RODRIGUEZ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER B. BORIS 2 I, Alexander B. Boris, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California, and I am an 4 associate attorney at Javaheri and Yahoudai, APLC, counsel of record for Plaintiff Sandee 5 Rodriguez, in this action. I am responsible for the handling of this case and, as such, have 6 personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. If called upon to testify to the facts stated herein, 7 I could competently testify to the matters as stated herein. 8 2. On November 22, 2023, Defendant served a copy of its Deposition Subpoena for 9 Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to Eduardo Jose Marcus, PA 10 (erroneously omitting the name of the associated medical facility which is LAUREL 11 INTERNAL MEDICINE CLINIC) with a personal appearance and production date of January 12 8, 2024 (“Subpoena”). A true and correct copy of the aforementioned Deposition Subpoena is 13 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. 14 3. On December 12, 2023, I, by and through my Paralegal, served Plaintiff’s meet and 15 confer and objections letter to Defendant’s counsel, the document custodian and the 16 witness/corresponding medical facility regarding Defendant’s Subpoena. A true and correct 17 copy of Plaintiff’s December 12, 2023 meet and confer and objections letter is attached hereto 18 as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. 19 4. On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel 20 by telephone, at which time Defendant made its position known that they would not be 21 voluntarily withdrawing the Subpoena and the instant motion was necessary. 22 5. On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed the details of the telephone 23 conversation with Defendant’s counsel through an email. On the same day, Defendant’s 24 counsel confirmed the agreement through email correspondence. The email correspondence is 25 attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. 26 6. I have been practicing law for over 10 years. I earned my undergraduate degree from 27 Yeshiva University in New York with a bachelor’s in economics. I graduated from the 28 University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law. My rate of $450/hr. is reasonable with 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 someone of my expertise and experience. I have spent three (3) hours preparing this motion 2 and separate statement. I anticipate spending another two (2) hours to reply to an opposition 3 and expect to spend an additional one (1) hour appearing at the motion hearing which brings 4 the total to six (6) hours at $450.00 per hour, for a total of $2,700.00. Sanctions against 5 Defendant and their attorneys of record is appropriate. 6 I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws 7 of the State of California. 8 Executed on December 21, 2023 at Los Angeles County, California. 9 10 ________________________________ Alexander B. Boris, Esq. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA EXHIBIT “A” 1mmn1mmmummm *CA1147291* JAVAHERI & YAHOUDAI 1880 CENTURY PARKE, #717 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 ATTN: ALEXANDER B. BORIS CASE NAME: SANDEE RODRIGUEZ v GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED FILE NO: CA1147291-001 SUBP-020 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY RACHEL T. VELILLA (Bar# 276112) GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CA 92614 TELEPHONE NO.: 949-255-6950 FAX NO. (Optlonaf): 949-474-2060 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Opl/onaf): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY STREET ADDRESS: 1200 AGUAJITO ROAD MAILING ADDRESS: CITY ANO ZIP CODE: MONTEREY, 93940 BRANCH NAME: MONTEREY SUPERIOR PLAINTIFF/ PEITIONER: SANDEE RODRIGUEZ DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT: GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED CASE NUMBER: DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 22CV000177 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, If known): WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1441 CONSTITUTION BLVD. BLDG. 151, SALINAS, CA 93906 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action at the followin date time and lace: Date: 01/08/2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. Address: Remote- Videoconference deposition, Videoconference de osition CA 00000 • :"?: a. D As a deponent who Is nqt a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as to the matters described in item 2. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.) b. !i1 ·vou are ordered to produce the documents and things described in item 3. C. !i1 This deposition will be recorded stenographically D through the Instant visual display of testimony l and by D audio.-tap~ D videotape. 1: d. D This videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d). I 2. The personal attendance of the custodian or other.qualified witness and the production of the original records are required by this i·· subpoena. The procedure by Evidence Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this '. ' subpoena. • • • ~- The documents and things to be produced· and any testing or sampling being sought are described as follows: ! li1 Continued on Attachment 3. 4·,• If the witness is a representative of a business or other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are described i I as follows: • ; l I i i- D Continued on Attachmen, 4 5. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER ! l • CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDU~E: SECTION 1985.3 OR 198S.6 AND A'MOTION TO QUASH OR ·AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN ..... l - .. SERVED ON YOU~ A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE ' ! : , AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYE.E RECORDS. 6. At the deposition, you will be asked questions under oath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographlcally at the deposition: later they are transcribed for possible use at trial. You'may read the written record and change any Incorrect answers before you sign the deposition. You are entitled to receive witness fees ·and mileage actually traveled both ways: The money must be paid, at the option of the party gMng notice of the deposition, e{ther. with service of thfs subpoena or at the time of the deposition. Unless the court orders or you agree otherwise, If you are being deposed as an• ' Individual, the deposition must take place within 75 miles of your residence or within 150 miles of your residence it the deposition will be taken within the ' t;ounty of the court where the action Is pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section ' 2025.250. . DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. Date issued: 11/22/2023 ------------ RACHEL T. VELILLA ► ISi RACHEL T. VELILLA (TYPE OR PRI~ NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA) ATTORNEY AT LAW (TITLE) Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 7:52 PM To: Alex Boris; Aaron Alexander; records@compexlegal.com Cc: Christie Noble; 'Cynthia Cruz' Subject: RE: Sandee Rodriguez v. GAWFCO - Objections to Subpoenas - Compex Work Order No. CA1132148 - DO NOT PRODUCE Confirmed. Compex please WITHDRAW CA1132148-033 Laurel Internal Medicine Clinic and do not reissue. Thanks, RACHEL T. VELILLA | Partner GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI / GRSM50 YOUR 50 STATE LAW FIRM™ 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 D: 949-526-8280 | rvelilla@grsm.com www.grsm.com vCard From: Alex Boris Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 11:18 AM To: Rachel Velilla ; Aaron Alexander ; records@compexlegal.com Cc: Christie Noble ; 'Cynthia Cruz' Subject: Re: Sandee Rodriguez v. GAWFCO - Objections to Subpoenas - Compex Work Order No. CA1132148 - DO NOT PRODUCE Hi Rachel, Per our meet and confer conversation, you are withdrawin g Su bpoena 033, Laural Internal Medicine Clinic, and we wi ll be movin g forward with the Motion to Quash on subpoena to the psych p hysician. If th is does not co mport t o your Hi Rachel, Per our meet and confer conversation, you are withdrawing Subpoena 033, Laural Internal Medicine Clinic, and we will be moving forward with the Motion to Quash on subpoena to the psych physician. If this does not comport to your understanding, please advise immediately. Aaron will be following up regarding the deposition of Christine Moore on a separate email chain. Thank you, Alex Alexander B. Boris, Esq. 1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Sandee Rodriguez vs. Gawfco Enterprises, Incorporated, et. al. 2 Superior Court of California, County of Monterey 3 Case No. 22CV000177 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 5 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 6 eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1880 Century Park East, Suite 717, Los Angeles, CA 90067. 7 8 On December 21, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION 9 SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA; MEMORANDUM OF 10 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER B. BORIS, ESQ.; 11 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,700.00 AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD; [PROPOSED] ORDER, 12 on the interested parties listed to this action, addressed as follows: 13 [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] 14 (XX) BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to California 15 Rules of Court, Rule 2.251 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(a)(2), (4) and (5), I caused a 16 copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address aaron@jnylaw.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed on the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the 17 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was not successful. 18 19 (XX) BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the aforementioned documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at 20 the address(es) identified on the “Service List”. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery in accordance with usual and customary business practices for collecting 21 or regularly utilizing drop boxes for the overnight delivery carrier. 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on this 21st day of December, 2023, at Los Angeles, California. 24 25 26 ________________________________ Aaron Alexander 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA 1 SERVICE LIST Sandee Rodriguez vs. Gawfco Enterprises, Incorporated, et. al. 2 Superior Court of California, County of Monterey 3 Case No. 22CV000177 4 VIA EMAIL: 5 Rachel T. Velilla, Esq. Gordon Recs Scully Mansukhani 6 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 7 Tel.: (949) 526-8280 8 Fax: (949) 474-2060 Email: rvelilla@grsm.com 9 cnoble@grsm.com 10 Attorney for Defendant, GAWFCO ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED 11 VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: 12 Compex Legal Services, Inc. 13 325 Maple Avenue Torrance, CA 90503 14 Email: records@compexlegal.com 15 cynthia.cruz@compexlegal.com 16 VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: 17 Eduardo Jose Marcus, PA 18 Laurel Internal Medicine Clinic 1441 Constitution Blvd., Bldg 151, Suite 16 19 Salinas, CA 93906 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO WITNESS, EDUARDO JOSE MARCUS, PA