As the parties' papers on both Plaintiff's motion to quash/motion for protective order regarding Defendants' subpoena to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Plaintiff's motion to quash/motion for protective order regarding Defendants' subpoena to Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. are virtually identical, the court issues one ruling as to both motions.
Plaintiff's motions to quash/motion for protective order regarding subpoenas issued to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. are GRANTED IN PART. CCP § 1987.1(a).
The court finds Defendants establish that the documents Defendants seek are relevant to Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' defenses in this case. However, the court also finds that the subpoenas are impermissibly broad. The court limits the scope of both subpoenas to the time period February 1, 2017 (two years prior to the events giving rise to this lawsuit) to present. The court also excludes the following highlighted re
Hearing Date
November 19, 2020
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
As the parties' papers on both Plaintiff's motion to quash/motion for protective order regarding Defendants' subpoena to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Plaintiff's motion to quash/motion for protective order regarding Defendants' subpoena to Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. are virtually identical, the court issues one ruling as to both motions.
Plaintiff's motions to quash/motion for protective order regarding subpoenas issued to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. are GRANTED IN PART. CCP § 1987.1(a).
The court finds Defendants establish that the documents Defendants seek are relevant to Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' defenses in this case. However, the court also finds that the subpoenas are impermissibly broad. The court limits the scope of both subpoenas to the time period February 1, 2017 (two years prior to the events giving rise to this lawsuit) to present. The court also excludes the following highlighted re