Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV14205, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV14205    Hearing Date: August 1, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Elizabeth Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) for damages relating to Plaintiff’s trip and fall on Defendant’s property on or about April 17, 2018. 

Plaintiff, at this time, moves to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoenas served on Valenzuela & Ginzburg Law and on BCS Systems AKA Bosler Klein Legal Billing Services seeking Plaintiff’s records.  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Plaintiff contends that through the subpoenas, Defendant is seeking unfettered access to Plaintiff’s entire employment history for the past eleven years.  Plaintiff asserts that while she is claiming lost wages as a result of the incident, Defendant’s request for her entire personnel file without limitation violates her right to privacy.  Further, Plaintiff provides that she is an attorney and argues that the request for all of Plaintiff’s legal billing records, employment records, and timesheets infringe on work product and attorney-client privilege. 

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has refused to produce documents to support her wage loss claim.  Defendant contends that plaintiff’s deposition testimony taken on March 23, 2022, showed that information given in her written discovery was not straightforward or complete, so the information is needed to evaluate her damages claims.  Further, Defendant asserts it is unaware of any other sources from which it could obtain this information.  Defendant avers the subpoenas seek relevant information and are not overbroad. 

In reply, Plaintiff again contends the subpoenas seek privileged information, and that Plaintiff only seeks a reasonable restriction and limitations on the subpoenas.

2. Analysis

            A court “may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (CCP § 1987.1.) The court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas. (See, e.g., Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.) The parties’ discussion of their meet and confer efforts, or lack thereof, is irrelevant as there is no meet and confer requirement in bringing a motion to quash. (See CCP § 1987.1.)

            “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)  “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ...”  (citation).”  These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and contrary to popular belief fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.  (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.)

When compelled disclosure intrudes on constitutionally protected areas, it cannot be justified solely on the ground that it may lead to relevant information, rather, the compelled disclosure must be directly relevant.  (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525.)  Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a “careful balancing” of the “compelling public need” for discovery against the “fundamental right of privacy.”  (Ibid.)

The Court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for disclosure.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-56; see also John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199.)  The ascertainment of the truth in connection with legal proceedings is a compelling state interest.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 857.)  In balancing the divergent interests, the court considers the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and the availability of the alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information.  (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005.)  The more sensitive the nature of the personal information that is sought, the more substantial the showing of the need for the discovery that will be required before disclosure will be permitted.  (Id. at 1004.)

“In Hill, [the California Supreme Court] established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy.”  (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, citing Hill v. Nat. Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)  “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.”  (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552.)  “The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.”  (Ibid.)  “A court must then balance these competing considerations.”  (Ibid.)

The California Supreme Court has rejected the “de facto starting assumption that such an egregious invasion is involved in every request for discovery of private information.”  (Id. at 557.)  It has directed courts to “instead place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies, as Hill requires.”  (Ibid.)  A compelling need for the discovery is not always required.  (Ibid.)  “What suffices to justify an invasion will…vary according to the context.” (Ibid.)

In this case, the subpoena served on the Valenzuela & Ginzburg demands:

Any and all employment records including, but not limited to, wages, attendance, payroll records, salary, benefits, applications, all Workers' Compensation claim records, timesheets, vacation and sick leave, health insurance records, medical records, performance reviews, evaluations, job description and analysis, safety records, disciplinary reports, injury reports, disability records, wage loss records, termination/separation records, and any other personnel file records in your custody or control pertaining to the above-named individual. RELATING TO THE LEFT WRIST UP TO THE ELBOW, LEFT UPPER EXTREMITY AND HIP. FOR DATES OF: 01/01/2011 TO PRESENT

(Mot. Exh. A.)  The subpoena served on o BCS Systems aka Bosler Klein Legal Billing Services (“BCS Systems”) seeks:

ANY AND ALL RECORDS OF EMPLOYMENT AND LEGAL BILLING PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH RAMONA VALENZUELA, AKA LIZ VALENZUELA (DOB: 4-09-1960) FROM JANUARY 01, 2011 TO PRESENT. FOR DATES OF: 01/01/2011 TO PRESENT

(Mot. Exh. B.) 

As to the subpoenas served on the Valenzuela & Ginzburg and on BCS Systems concerning all of Plaintiff’s employment records, confidential personnel files at a person's place of employment are within a zone of privacy. (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-30.)  While Defendant contends the records are necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s wage loss claim, it is not clear how every document sought in the subpoenas is discoverable.  For example, the subpoena served on BCS Systems seeks any and all records of employment and billing pertaining to Plaintiff without limitation for over eleven years.  The subpoena served on Valenzuela & Ginzburg similarly seeks any and all employment records for Plaintiff for over eleven years, including Plaintiff’s application, which can contain sensitive information, health insurance records, disability records, and all other documents whatsoever pertaining to Plaintiff.  While Plaintiff makes a crude attempt to limit the Valenzuela & Ginzburg records to “THE LEFT WRIST UP TO THE ELBOW, LEFT UPPER EXTREMITY AND HIP. FOR DATES OF: 01/01/2011 TO PRESENT,” this makes the request difficult to understand if not nonsensical.  For example, does the request seek records showing when the left wrist was in attendance or on vacation?  While a plaintiff waives some expectation of privacy relating to the conditions claimed in a lawsuit, Defendant fails to show that all the requested information is directly relevant to this matter, such as to outweigh Plaintiff’s right to privacy in her employment files.  Additionally, as Plaintiff asserts, Defendant is seeking all of Plaintiff’s employment records.  However, Plaintiff is an attorney and such a request for all records without limitation may necessarily implicate the attorney-client privilege or Plaintiff’s work product. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is granted.  The subpoenas to Valenzuela & Ginzburg and on BCS Systems are quashed.[1]

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 1^st day of August 2022