Q: Demand for inspection

A: To address this question, let's break it down and consider the relevant aspects of California law:

1. Section 2031.010 of the California Code of Civil Procedure:

This section allows a party to demand that another party produce and permit inspection and copying of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things within the party's possession, custody, or control.

2. Inspection of records on premises:

Generally, a demand for inspection under Section 2031.010 should be sufficient for inspecting records, including electronic health records (EHR) system reports or logs, at the hospital premises or a reasonable location.

3. Why a subpoena might be needed:

a) Third-party records: If the records are held by a non-party to the litigation, a subpoena may be necessary. Hospitals are often not parties to lawsuits involving patient care.

b) Privacy concerns: Healthcare records are subject to strict privacy laws (e.g., HIPAA). A subpoena provides a formal legal mechanism to address these concerns.

c) Specificity: A subpoena can be more specific about what exactly needs to be produced or inspected, which can be crucial for complex EHR systems.

d) Enforceability: A subpoena is a court order, which carries more weight than a demand for inspection if there's resistance to compliance.

e) On-site inspection: While Section 2031.010 covers document production, a subpoena might be seen as more appropriate for on-site inspection of systems.

f) Timing and notice: Subpoenas provide clear timelines and notice requirements, which can be beneficial when dealing with large institutions like hospitals.

In conclusion, while Section 2031.010 should theoretically be sufficient for many situations, the sensitive nature of medical records, the complexity of EHR systems, and the potential for hospitals to be non-parties in litigation often make subpoenas a preferred or necessary tool for inspecting these records.