Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV18285, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18285    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTIONS TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS

Date:               8/4/22 (8:30 AM)                   

Case:              Nicole Watson v. Star Pro Security Patrol Inc. (21STCV18285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Watson’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Issued to Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc. is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Nicole Watson’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Issued to Universal Protection Service, LP is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Nicole Watson’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Issued to CoraMed Healthcare is GRANTED.

The deposition subpoenas issued to (1) Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc., (2) Universal Protection Service, LP, and (3) CoraMed Healthcare are QUASHED.

With respect to the deposition subpoenas issued to Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc. and Universal Protection Service, LP, personnel files sought by the subpoenas are accorded a strong degree of privacy. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528.) The subpoenas also seek medical records, which are also accorded a right of privacy. (Grafilo v. Wolfsohn (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1034.)

However, “the constitutional right to privacy is not absolute. [Citations.] It may be outweighed by supervening concerns. [Citation.]” (Palay v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 919, 933.) “When the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery. [Citations.]” (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.)

Defendants Star Pro Security Patrol Inc., Star Pro International Security and Training Inc., and Terry Covington maintain that the employment records are relevant to plaintiff’s efforts to maintain comparable employment. (Candari v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 402, 409 [“[B]oth public and private employees faced with a wrongful discharge have a legal duty to mitigate damages while pursuing remedies against their former employer”].) However, defendants do not dispute plaintiff’s allegation that she worked with them from February 2017 until November 2019. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 17.) Accordingly, defendants have access to information to argue that plaintiff was not qualified to obtain positions like those she had with defendants.

Defendants also contend that the requested employment records may contain medical records which demonstrate that plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress did not arise from defendants’ conduct. However, defendants’ speculation is not sufficient to outweigh plaintiff’s right to privacy in her medical records. Even if any medical records contained in the employment records reference emotional distress, defendants have less intrusive means of ascertaining whether plaintiff’s purported emotional distress arose from other sources, including deposing plaintiff and conducting written discovery. (El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 346.)

Defendant also invokes the after-acquired evidence doctrine. (Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833, 842 [“The after-acquired-evidence doctrine serves as a complete or partial defense to an employee's claim of wrongful discharge. It comes into play when, after an employee's termination, the employer learns of employee wrongdoing that would have resulted in the employee's discharge in any event”].) However, defendants do not sufficiently explain how any wrongdoing in prior employment would justify the termination of plaintiff’s employment. Defendants do not explain how production of the entire file, including records related to employee benefits or payroll, are probative of plaintiff’s wrongful termination claims against defendants.  

Defendants maintain that the requested employment records are probative of plaintiff’s credibility, as plaintiff purportedly filed lawsuits against her former employers. However, defendants do not sufficiently explain how the production of the entirety of plaintiff’s employment records is warranted. Defendants do not refer to specific allegations in the other lawsuits and tailor their requested documents accordingly.

According to defendants, the employment records are probative of plaintiff’s knowledge of the procedures to report discrimination and retaliation, as plaintiff purportedly never complained about most of the allegations in the Complaint. Whether or not plaintiff made any complaints to defendants is not necessarily dispositive of whether the prohibited discrimination or retaliation occurred and therefore not sufficiently probative to warrant access to plaintiff’s prior employment records.

In sum, defendants do not state any grounds upon which plaintiff’s right of privacy is outweighed by the need for discovery.

The motions regarding the deposition subpoenas issued to Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc. and Universal Protection Service, LP are GRANTED.

With respect to the subpoena issued to CoraMed Healthcare, plaintiff’s medical provider, the requested documents in the subpoenas contain no limitation for any type or treatment or any limitation based on time.  As such, the request is entirely overbroad. The Court is under no obligation to redraft the overbroad requests in the subpoenas. (See Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 851.)

Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoena issued to CoraMed Healthcare is GRANTED.