Q: Should I do Motion to Quash in response to request for authorization of medical records by Defendant.

A: In California, when a defendant requests authorization to obtain medical records, the appropriate response is typically to file a Motion for a Protective Order rather than a Motion to Quash. Here's why:

1. Motion to Quash: A Motion to Quash is generally used to challenge a subpoena, arguing that the subpoena is defective, issued improperly, or seeks information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. It is not the most appropriate response to a request for authorization to obtain medical records.

2. Motion for a Protective Order: A Motion for a Protective Order is used to limit or prevent the disclosure of sensitive, confidential, or privileged information, such as medical records. Under California law, a party can seek a protective order to limit the scope of discovery or to protect certain documents from being disclosed.

When a defendant requests authorization for medical records, you can file a Motion for a Protective Order to argue that:

a. The requested records are not relevant to the case.

b. The request is overly broad or burdensome.

c. The records contain sensitive or privileged information that should not be disclosed.

The court will then review the motion and decide whether to grant the protective order, limiting or denying the defendant's access to the requested medical records.

In summary, a Motion for a Protective Order is the more appropriate response when a defendant requests authorization for medical records in California, as it allows you to argue for the protection of sensitive or irrelevant information without challenging the validity of a subpoena.