Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 20STCV37569, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37569    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Quash or Modify Employment Subpoena Issued by Defendant to Health Nut; Request for Monetary Sanctions; (2) Motion to Quash or Modify Employment Subpoena Issued by Defendant to Allied Universal Security Services; Request for Monetary Sanctions;  (3) Motion to Quash or Modify Employment Subpoena Issued by Defendant to Ipic Theaters, LLC; Request for Monetary Sanctions.

All three motions are granted, except for sanctions, without prejudice to serve any proper, narrowed subpoenas.

The Court quashes Defendant’s subpoenas served on Health Nut, Allied Universal Security Services and Ipic Theaters, LLC.

On 10/1/20, Plaintiff JOSE MAGALLON (“Plaintiff”) filed a PAGA Complaint alleging employment at GUS’S WORLD FAMOUS FRIED CHICKEN (“Defendant”), and the employer’s violations of Labor Code sections: 201-203 (failure to timely pay wages upon separation), 226.7 (failure to provide meal and rest periods), and provisions of Labor Code section 226. 

Plaintiff filed motions requesting that the Court quash deposition subpoenas seeking documents from three of Plaintiff’s subsequent employers, and to impose $3,660.00 in sanctions as to each motion. Defendant opposes the motion.

Each of the subpoenas seeks the same ten categories of documents, including Plaintiff’s employment application, performance review records, W2s, and paystubs. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has a privacy right in the documents sought, which include his personnel files (BRV, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 756), and the personal financial information contained in the personnel records (Look v. Penovatz, (2019) 34 Cal. App. 5th 61, 73). Defendant therefore has the burden of showing that the information is “directly relevant” to a cause of action or defense, such that disclosure is “essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” Britt v. Superior Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 859. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s employment records are relevant to his emotional distress claim and mitigation of damages in this case. Even if some of the information sought is relevant, the requests as drafted are overbroad as discussed below. Defendant explains that Plaintiff did not produce any records regarding his employment with these companies, and so no less intrusive means exists for obtaining the information. But there are ways to ensure that any production of such information protects Plaintiff’s privacy interests in the materials, for example, by entering into a protective order to keep any documents produced confidential.  The Court expects the parties to fully explore that option in the future.

Plaintiff’s overbreadth and relevancy objections to each of the categories are also well-founded. The requests are not shown to request only directly relevant information and they are not narrowly drawn.  For example, Defendant seeks Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claims even though Plaintiff does not assert any such claim in this case. Defendant contends that it seeks information about Plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation based on seizures, “severe and profound pain and emotional distress” and “loss and diminution of earning capacity”  (oppositions, David Zimmerman decl., ¶¶ 4-5).  The categories, as worded, do not include such narrowed descriptions. Rather, the categories broadly request records such as paystubs, W2s, and documents showing any benefits Plaintiff is to receive.

As for sanctions, the Court finds partial substantial justification for some positions of each side, including because the subpoenas partially target information directly relevant to defending the allegations, but need to be reworded and narrowed.

The motions therefore are granted, except sanctions, and Defendant may serve any proper and narrowed subpoenas.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has two motions to quash set for December 8, 2023 regarding subpoenas served on two other companies who have employed Plaintiff. The Court’s tentative regarding those subpoenas, which contain the exact same categories of documents as the ones at issue in this motion, will be the same as it is for this motion. The parties should be prepared to tell the Court if they want to advance the hearing on those motions to December 7, 2023  to avoid having to appear two days in a row to argue the same issues.