Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV14923, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14923    Hearing Date: April 28, 2025    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Carl Winston’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents

 Plaintiff Carl Winston moves to compel defendants State Farm General Insurance Co., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State Farm Life Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (collectively, “State Farm”) to serve further responses to requests for production Nos. 71 and 72. 

A party demanding documents may move to compel further responses to requests for production if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) 

State Farm made valid objections to these requests.  Request No. 71 demands: “All documents reflecting Defendant Linds[e]y’s personnel file.”  State Farm made numerous objections, including that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that it invades Lindsey’s privacy rights.  State Farm adequately substantiates its objections.    

Plaintiff’s reliance on Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976 is misplaced.  There, the court did not address whether an alleged harasser’s personnel file was discoverable.  It addressed whether the trial court erred “in giving the jury an instruction on willful suppression of evidence” because the employer “covered up” the “disappearance” of the alleged harasser’s personnel file.  (Id. at p. 994.) 

Plaintiff’s motion also cites authority stating that “the disclosure of information and documents in an alleged harasser’s personnel file is warranted when a plaintiff narrows the request to seek specific, relevant documents contained in the personnel file.”  (Memo, p. 7.)  In Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios (C.D. Cal. 1995) 165 F.R.D. 601, 605, the court overruled defendants’ privacy objections, reasoning, “By narrowing her request to specific documents in the defendants’ personnel files, rather than the complete personnel files, a balance has, in fact, been achieved between plaintiff’s need to discover the information and the privacy rights of the defendants.”  Here, plaintiff demands the entire personnel file, not specific documents contained in it.  His request is overly broad and invades Lindsey’s privacy rights.

Request No. 72 demands, “All documents regarding Linds[e]y’s PayScale.”  State Farm made objections including that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that it invades Lindsey’s privacy rights.  Again, State Farm adequately substantiates these objections.  Plaintiff makes no reasonable argument as to why the amount State Farm paid Lindsey is discoverable.  He contends, “Her PayScale will show whether or not Defendants kept promoting and rewarding her despite knowledge of her unlawful conduct.  This opens State Farm up to punitive damages.”  (Motion, p. 6.)  Plaintiff cites no authority for that proposition.  Assuming promoting and rewarding Lindsey may be relevant to punitive damages or any other issue, there is no reason plaintiff needs to know the precise amount State Farm paid her.  Her privacy rights outweigh plaintiff’s need for disclosure.

State Farm’s objections to plaintiff’s requests for production Nos. 71 and 72 are sustained.

Disposition

            Plaintiff Carl Winston’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is denied.