Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV09625, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09625    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Chantal Quintana's Motions to Quash Subpoena for Records

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff Chantal Quintana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Zachary Dylan Paugh (“Defendant”) for negligence.

On June 22, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed Motions to Quash Subpoena for Records to be heard on April 5, 2023. On March 15, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition. On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for September 15, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court quash Defendant’s subpoenas for records served on Chrysler, UDC Corporation, University of Phoenix (“UoP”) and Walden University (“Walden”).

Defendant requests the Court deny the motion and compel Walden and UoP to provide the requested documents.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1: (a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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. (b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3(b) outlines that a subpoena for production of personal records must be served on the consumer whose records are sought; it must be served at least five days prior to service upon the custodian of records. This subpoena must be accompanied by a notice indicating records sought, how to object, and that an attorney should be consulted, although this may be included in the Notice of Deposition served on consumer. CCP § 1985.3(e). Section (g) further clarifies: “No witness or deposition officer shall be required to produce personal records after receipt of notice that the motion [to quash] has been brought by a consumer, or after receipt of a written objection from a nonparty consumer, except upon order of the court in which the action is pending or by agreement of the parties, witnesses, and consumers affected.”

As a general rule, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.) When the information sought to be discovered impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play for that person. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover both a person’s personal and financial matters. (Id.) The court must balance competing rights — the right of a litigant to discover relevant facts and the right of an individual to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Id.) For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

DISCUSSION

Employment Records

On December 23, 2022, Defendant issued subpoenas to Chrysler and UDC Corporation for employment records. Defendant requested “Any and all documents that pertain, relate, or refer in any way to the referenced employee. This includes job applications, performance reviews, disciplinary reports, time sheets, work schedules, hourly schedules, retirement & pension documents, documents related to salary adjustments, W-2, W-4, W-9, job descriptions, safety manuals, procedure manuals, training manuals, documents pertaining to compensation including but not limited to overtime, documents pertaining to the payment of expenses, documents pertaining to absences including but not limited to sick leave, leaves of absence, and absences due to injury, copies of all paychecks or an itemized ledger of paychecks, medical history, personal history, disability reports, any claims for workers’ compensation or any other claims, claims of work-related injuries, claims of industrial-related injuries, incident reports, accident reports, and reports that refer or relate in any way to the named employee.”

Plaintiff is not making a loss of earnings or income claim; Defendant claims that these records are relevant as Plaintiff is employed with these parties and stated she requested accommodations from her work related to the subject incident. The Court disagrees with Defendant. Plaintiff is not and has never made a loss of income or earnings claim in this case. This is not a worker’s compensation case and any accommodations offered by the employer are irrelevant. Furthermore, the scope of the subpoena far exceeds any potentially relevant discovery. Defendant requested payment records, performance reviews, training manuals and history of absences, among other things, none of which have any relevance given the lack of loss of earnings claims. Additionally, there is no scope as to time, making the subpoena overbroad.

Education Records

On December 23, 2022, Defendant issued subpoenas to UoP and Walden for education records. Defendant requested ““All records for the above-referenced student(s), including but not limited to any and all school records, disciplinary notices and reports, suspension notices and reports, attendance records and tardiness records, awards given, documentation of participation in sports, documentation of extracurricular activities, documentation of after school programs, progress and report cards, meeting/conferences held and notes, transcripts, SAT scores, FCAT scores, applications, class schedules, book fees, counseling reports and notes, any and all other documentation pertaining to the education and counseling of the above-referenced student(s)”

As stated above, Plaintiff is not making a loss of earning or income claim; Defendant claims that these records are relevant as Plaintiff stated she had a high GPA and suffered physical injuries in the incident. The Court disagrees with Defendant. Plaintiff was not a student at the time of the incident—her previous education records are wholesale irrelevant to determining damages, especially as she is not making any income impact claims. Any injury to Plaintiff’s cognitive abilities should be investigated via medical discovery, not educational records. Additionally, there is no scope as to time, making the subpoena overbroad.

Defendant’s Opposition

Defendant’s opposition is based on Plaintiff’s allegation of head/brain injury, resulting in cognitive impairment; the subject records are relevant to evaluate Plaintiff’s cognitive baseline as well as her credibility. This is an improper way to conduct discovery into such allegations; Defendant’s counsel is not a medical professional. They are not trained or equipped to evaluate employment and education records and determine if someone had preexisting cognitive injuries, including “headaches and episodes of punching sharp in the right temple...sensitivity to light and blurred vision...short-term memory loss and difficulty concentrating.” The requested discovery invades Plaintiff’s right to privacy without good cause or any likelihood of discovery relevant evidence. The Court grants the motions, quashing all four subpoenas.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Chantal Quintana's Motions to Quash Subpoena for Records are GRANTED. The subpoenas are quashed.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.