*1 On December 30, 2021, defendant Randall Layne filed a motion to compel Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to produce medical and mental health records related to the care and treatment of plaintiff Saul Yonko (also known as Saul Tracy or Saul Torres, Jr.). Docket no. 64. The motion is supported by the declaration of defendant's counsel Yaron F. Dunkel (“Dunkel Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. On January 12, 2022, plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.

The court found a hearing on the motion would not be of assistance, and so vacated the hearing scheduled for February 1, 2022. The court now grants defendant's motion to compel production of plaintiff Saul Yonko's medical and mental health records.

On October 7, 2021, plaintiffs Saul Yonko, Marilyn Yonko, and Walter Tracy filed a First Amended Complaint against defendants Randall Layne and the City of Upland, alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims of battery, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs allege defendant Layne used unreasonable force when he discharged his department-issued firearm, inflicting a gunshot wound to Saul Yonko. At the time of the incident Yonko was purportedly carrying a knife and suffering from a mental crisis.

On October 25, 2021, defendant Layne issued a subpoena under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health seeking Saul Yonko's medical and mental health records. Dunkel Decl., Ex. B. Defendant issued a similar subpoena to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center on November 16, 2021. Id., Ex. A. Plaintiffs did not object or move to quash to the subpoenas.

Both entities require either the patient's signed authorization to release records or a court order regarding the same. On December 8, 2021 plaintiffs' counsel Ed Lyman signed an authorization as plaintiff's representative. Dunkel Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. G. Both Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health refused to accept the authorization signed by Mr. Lyman, stating the authorization must be signed by Saul Yonko. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11, Exs, H, I. Although Mr. Lyman informed defendant he would obtain the authorization, he has failed to do so. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs' non-opposition states plaintiffs' counsel has submitted multiple authorizations, but does not specify who signed them.

Defendant seeks an order compelling Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to comply with the subpoenas and release Saul Yonko's medical and mental health records. Defendant argues good cause exists for compelling production, namely the records are relevant to Yonko's physical and mental state at the time of the incident. Additionally, the records may be indicative of Yonko's ability to testify in deposition or trial.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 45 permits a party to serve a subpoena commanding a nonparty “to attend and give testimony or to produce and permit inspection and copying of” documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(C). Rule 45 subpoenas must meet the same requirements applicable to any discovery sought because “[t]he scope of discovery [sought] through a subpoena under Rule 45 is the same as the scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b).” Intermarine, LLC v. Spliethoff Bevrachtingskantoor, B.V., 123 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1217 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted); ATS Prods., Inc. v. Champion Fiberglass, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 527, 530 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45). Rule 26(b) allows a party to obtain discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “[A] court determining the propriety of a [Rule 45] subpoena balances the relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party's need, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena.” ATS Prods., Inc., 309 F.R.D. at 531 (citation omitted).

*2 Courts have broad discretion in controlling discovery” and “in determining relevancy.” Laub v. Horbaczewski, 331 F.R.D. 516, 521 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) and Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005)). “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Here, the records sought are relevant to Yonko's physical and mental state. Defendant argues Yonko's behavior on the date of the incident is attributed to a “history of prior and subsequent hospitalizations and therapy.” Mtn. at 3. Defendant contends Yonko was hospitalized at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center a month before the incident and was served by the Los Angeles Department of Mental Health. Id. As such, the medical records might indicate whether Yonko was suffering from any mental distress that would make him “impulsive, violent, and prone to attack the police officers.” See id.

Additionally, Yonko's mental and medical health records may indicate whether his “mental condition affects his ability to accurately testify in deposition or at trial ... and will shed a light on all the plaintiffs' credibility.” Mtn. at 3-4. Plaintiff's counsel indicated Yonko lacks capacity to testify because he has been declared incompetent and is under a conservatorship. See docket no. 61 at 4, Ex. D. Hence, the records sought may be helpful in determining whether Yonko is competent to testify.

The records are further relevant to plaintiffs' damages claims. See Kilroy v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2018 WL 6071089, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2018) (finding plaintiff put physical and mental condition at issue when he sought to recover medical expenses and damages). Plaintiffs here seek damages for Yonko's “severe mental anguish” and “great physical pain and injury.” Compl. ¶ 26. Plaintiffs also seek damages for “future medical and related expenses,” placing Yonko's physical and mental health at issue in this case. Compl. at 17. Additionally, the records may be relevant to calculating “future loss of wages” and “earning capacity”, as they may be indicative of Yonko's ability to engage in any future gainful employment. See Id. Accordingly, the records are relevant to plaintiffs' claims.

On balance, the court finds defendant's subpoenas are proper because they seek relevant information and there is no indication the hospitals would be burdened if ordered to comply. Accordingly, the court grants defendant's motion to compel Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to comply with the subpoenas.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Randall Layne's motion to compel (docket no. 64) is granted. Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health must comply with defendant's subpoenas and produce the medical and mental health records requested in the subpoenas within 14 days of the date of this order, that is, by February 11, 2022.