Canton v. U.S. Foods, Inc.
- Cisneros
- 3:22-cv-04226
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Canton v. U.S. Foods, Judge Cisneros held Canton could challenge medical-record subpoenas and ordered more briefing before deciding whether to quash them.
Brian Canton and U.S. Foods, Inc.; the order also concerns medical providers that received U.S. Foods' subpoenas.
What happened
In Canton v. U.S. Foods, Inc., Brian Canton and U.S. Foods disputed subpoenas that U.S. Foods sent to Canton's medical providers seeking his medical records. Canton said he intended to ask the court to cancel the subpoenas, while U.S. Foods argued that he could not do so because the subpoenas were issued to nonparties.
The court held that Canton could challenge the subpoenas because he has privacy rights in his medical records under federal and California law. The court explained that those rights may be waived when a person puts medical information at issue, but any waiver is limited to information relevant to the lawsuit.
Judge Cisneros did not yet decide whether to cancel the subpoenas. The court ordered Canton and U.S. Foods to submit simultaneous briefs addressing whether Canton waived his privacy rights, what records each provider maintains, and whether those records are relevant and proportional to the case. The court set a hearing for April 25, 2023.
The detailed version
- Canton v. U.S. Foods, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-04226
- Cisneros
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a joint statement of a discovery dispute concerning subpoenas that U.S. Foods issued to Brian Canton's medical providers on March 10, 2023. The subpoenas sought Canton's medical records. Canton indicated that he intended to file a motion to quash, meaning a motion asking the court to cancel the subpoenas. U.S. Foods argued that Canton lacked standing—the legal right to ask the court to quash subpoenas issued to nonparties—because he had not claimed that the records involved privileged information.
Standing and Privacy Rights
The court held that Canton had standing to seek to quash the subpoenas. Although a party generally cannot challenge a subpoena issued to a nonparty, the court explained that a party may do so when the party has a personal right or privilege in the information sought. The court found that Canton has privacy rights in his medical records under the federal and California constitutions.
The court also explained the legal standards relevant to the remaining dispute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the case's needs. Under Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii), a court may quash a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected information when no exception or waiver applies. A person may waive medical-record privacy rights by putting the records' contents at issue, but any waiver is limited to private information relevant to the lawsuit.
Order
The court ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing on whether it should quash U.S. Foods' subpoenas under Rule 45(d)(3)(A) based on Canton's objections. The parties were directed to address whether Canton waived his privacy rights as to all the requested medical records, identify the nature and type of records held by each subpoenaed provider, and explain whether the records are relevant to the parties' claims or defenses under Rule 26(b)(1).
The court ordered Canton and U.S. Foods to file simultaneous letter briefs of no more than three pages by April 20, 2023, and set a hearing for April 25, 2023, by videoconference. The opinion does not state a final ruling on whether the subpoenas would be quashed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.