 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Passeri v. Dahlquist11/4/2002
itions that Passeri attributes to Dahlquist's conduct, but reasonably circumscribed medical history that may bear on the causes of those conditions. As the commissioner pointed out in his tentative ruling, Dahlquist has already received sufficient information concerning those conditions that with his expert's assistance he should be able to frame a far more precise demand than the blunderbuss subpoena served initially. Although Dahlquist's counsel indicated that he was prepared to narrow the demand in certain respects, it was not the commissioner's obligation to redraft the subpoena. It was well within the commissioner's discretion to quash the subpoena that had been served and to direct Dahlquist to reframe his demand with greater specificity. (Cf. Hallendorf v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 553, 557.) Indeed, a far more precise demand is necessary if the commissioner is to perform his obligation carefully to balance the need for particular documents as against Passeri's privacy interest, and to ensure that the production is no broader than necessary to meet the legitimate needs of the defense. (See Lantz v. Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1857; Britt v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 859; Palay v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 934.)
Nonetheless, on this record we do not believe there was any basis to conclude that Dahlquist's opposition to Passeri's motion was without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., ยงยง 2031, subd. (f), 2023 subd. (a)(8), (b)(1).) The subpoena that had been served on Drs. Moreno and Zeigler unquestionably was overbroad, but the subpoena was prepared and served when counsel was under the mistaken impression that Passeri had seen Drs. Moreno and Zeiger only in relation to the April 2001 seizure. When the mistake was brought to his attention, Dahlquist's attorney immediately offered to limit the time frame and the scope of the request. The motion to which Dahlquist responded asked the court to "limit the subpoena to medical records of plaintiff's seizure and any related medical condition," i.e., to prevent the production of any medical records predating Passeri's seizure. Dahlquist's opposition did not resist the attempt to limit the scope of the subpoena, but simply disagreed with the extent to which Passeri contended it should be narrowed. In support of the opposition, Dahlquist submitted a declaration from a physician indicating the reason for which Passeri's medical history was relevant and needed. While, as indicated above, the commissioner was justified in refusing to rewrite the subpoena and in requiring Dahlquist to undertake this task, there was substantial justification for Dahlquist to oppose Passeri's attempt to overly restrict his discovery. The imposition of sanctions under these undisputed circumstances constituted an abuse of discretion. (Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Associates (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1556-1558.)
Disposition
The order dated April 3, 2002, entered April 8, 2002, is modified to delete the award of sanctions and is otherwise affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
We concur:
McGuiness, P. J.
Corrigan, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|