Upon an affirmation, the People have applied to the Court for a subpoena commanding St. Barnabas Hospital to produce Mr. Valdez’s medical records. For the following reasons, the application is DENIED. On June 30, 2022, the People applied to the Court for a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena seeks to command St. Barnabas Hospital to provide: The medical record pertaining to [Mr. Valdez] between 6/23/2022 and the present day, including but not limited to any and all related reports, photographs, and notes by medical personnel related to the diagnosis and treatment of the above-referenced patient, any incident reports, and any and all records of psychological testing. Article 600 of the Criminal Procedure Law governs subpoenas in criminal proceedings. Applicable here, C.P.L. §610.20(4) requires that a party seeking a subpoena show that the evidence sought is “reasonably likely to be relevant and material to the proceedings.” The People have not shown that the subpoena they seek would reasonably result in relevant and material evidence. In part of their papers, the People accuse Mr. Valdez of “engaging in a protracted physical struggle” with EMS and police personnel and “slap[ping] the buttocks of a female EMT.” Aff. for Subpoena at 1-2. They allege this occurred in “the hallway of [Mr. Valdez's] building.” Id. at 1. And they allege that Mr. Valdez was “transported by FDNY to St. Barnabas Hospital after this incident as an intoxicated patient.” Id. The People assert they are “in possession of a video surveillance clip which depicts the assault in its entirety.” Id. at 2. But the People’s subsequent boilerplate argument does not credibly justify why these medical records are “reasonably likely to be relevant and material to the proceedings.” The People concede that “it is not a typical step to ask for a defendant’s medical record.” Id. However, they assert that the records here are so “inextricably intertwined” with “the question of fact” around “this crime” that a subpoena is justified. Id. Despite claiming that the records here are so “inextricably intertwined” with “the question of fact” around “this crime,” the People’s further argument entirely contradicts the first part of their affirmation. In the subsequent section, they write that “in this case because complainant is a doctor in his ward and defendant was a patient, the records are inextricably intertwined with the question of fact around this crime.” Id. (emphases added). However, the People earlier stated the complainant was not a “doctor” in Mr. Valdez’s “ward,” and Mr. Valdez not a “patient” of this “doctor,” but that the complainant was an “EMT” worker, and the incident had occurred “in the hallway of [Mr. Valdez's] building.” Id. at 1-2. Such fundamental factual contradictions in a two-page affirmation do not meet the People’s burden of credibly establishing why these records are “reasonably likely to be relevant and material to the proceedings.” In making this decision, the Court is mindful that the records the People seek here are highly private and sensitive. Medical records can reveal a person’s sexual orientation, diseases, STDs, struggles with drug addiction, pregnancy status, mental health diagnoses, gender assigned at birth, episodes of abuse, confidences with trusted medical professionals, and more. As a result, when it comes to a person’s medical records, courts must be vigilant to ensure that the statutory standard for a subpoena is met. Here, it was not. The People’s application for a subpoena is denied. The People are reminded that any application to reargue or renew must be addressed to this Court. C.P.L.R. §2221(a). The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: July 1, 2022
