Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 175·2000 Daily Journal DAR 2736·78 Cal. App. 4th 1282·93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 619·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2027
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 2000No. G025877California3,088 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Crosby, J.

The discovery rules do not discriminate against nonparty deponents. They need not scramble to retain a lawyer to file a motion to quash in order to challenge “records only” discovery requests that seek privileged information. It is sufficient to simply object.

I

Andrew Cassidenti, the head of an obstetrical medical practice group, sued Brian Koperek and other doctors for unfairly competing to secure a managed care contract from Monarch Healthcare covering some 100,000 Orange County residents. Koperek broke away from Cassidenti in 1995 and allegedly used confidential information to underbid him.

*1285 Cassidenti did not initially name Monarch as a defendant. Instead, in October 1998, he served a “records only” deposition subpoena on Monarch’s custodian of records as a nonparty witness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020, subd. (d).) Cassidenti sought all documents relating to Monarch’s negotiations with Koperek and with himself.

Monarch did not file a motion to quash. In December 1998, it produced some, but not all, of the documents, raising trade secrets and privacy objections. Discovery was put on hold for six months pending a dispute regarding mandatory arbitration.

Monarch…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.