Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV18285, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18285    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTIONS TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS (3)

Date:               12/8/22 (9:30 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 IN PART.

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

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

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.)

However, “[T]he 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.)

“The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.) Defendants Star Pro Security Patrol Inc., Star Pro International Security and Training Inc., and Terry Covington maintain that the requested documents are pertinent to the cause of plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress. Defendants point to an employment action filed by plaintiff against Universal Protection Service, LP and Allied Universal wherein plaintiff sought emotional distress damages arising from purported sexual harassment and sex or disability discrimination. (Sanchez Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. D at ¶¶ 11, 13, 25, 28, 43, 47.) Defendants argue that the requested documents are probative of to what extent plaintiff’s emotional injuries are attribute to defendants in the instant action, as opposed to the defendants in the prior action.

With respect to the documents reflecting payroll, wages, benefits, and/or salary requested by plaintiff, these documents do not pertain to any complaints plaintiff may have made about sexual harassment or disability discrimination. Defendants appear to concede this point with their proposal to exclude these wage documents from production. (Opp. at 3:24-26.)

With respect to complaints by plaintiff, these documents may evidence any incidents in plaintiff’s other employment which may be the cause of the emotional distress that plaintiff claims in the instant action. Accordingly, defendants’ request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

With respect to complaints against plaintiff, disciplinary records, and performance evaluations, defendants contend that these documents may show whether the subpoenaed entities issued warnings or poor performance evaluations that may have motivated plaintiff to file the prior action. (Opps. at 8:24-9:4.) In the prior action, plaintiff alleged that the defendants discharged her due to her pregnancy and that any stated reasons for her termination were pretextual. (Sanchez Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. D at ¶¶ 25, 27, 35, 37.) Accordingly, defendants’ request for performance-related documents are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding whether the emotional distress that plaintiff claims in the instant action is attributable to any sex or disability discrimination that may be evidenced in such documents.

Any determination that the requested documents constitute impermissible character evidence can be addressed in motions in limine. For the foregoing reasons, defendants meet their burden to establish direct relevance of the requested complaints by or against plaintiff, disciplinary records, and performance evaluations. Further, defendants are entitled to review the requested documents before deposing plaintiff. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119 [“California's pretrial discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness….”].) Consequently, plaintiff’s right of privacy is outweighed by defendants’ need for discovery.

To narrowly tailor the request, the time period governing production shall be limited to 2016 through 2019, as proposed by defendants. (Opps. at 3:24-26.) Plaintiff presents no argument that the time period proposed by defendants, as opposed to the nature of the requested documents themselves, is overbroad.

The motion regarding the subpoenas issued to Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc. and Universal Protection Service, LP is GRANTED IN PART with respect to documents reflecting payroll, wages, benefits, and/or salary records concerning plaintiff Nicole Watson.

Within thirty (30) days from service of notice of this ruling, subpoenaed entities Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc. and Universal Protection Service, LP are ordered to produce all records reflecting complaints/grievances by and/or against Nicole Watson, disciplinary records, and performance evaluations concerning Nicole Watson for the years 2016-2019.

Pursuant to defendants’ proposal, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a protective order that is to govern the production of documents produced by the subpoenaed entitles.

Given the mixed result, plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the motions regarding the subpoenas issued to Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc. and Universal Protection Service, LP is DENIED.

With respect to the subpoena issued to CoraMed Healthcare, plaintiff’s medical provider, the subpoena seeks medical records which are protected by a right of privacy. (Johnson v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1068, disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 [“A person's medical history undoubtedly falls within the recognized zones of privacy”].)

Defendants attempt to appear to limit the scope of their document requests by referencing the stabbing at work, from which plaintiff alleges a disability and subsequent discrimination. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 17, 30-33.) However, by indicating that they seek medical records “including, but not limited to” injuries resulting from a stabbing, defendants effectively demand all of plaintiff’s medical records from 2017 to the present.

Defendants’ speculation that the records may evidence alternative stressors that may be the source of plaintiff’s emotional distress alleged in the instant action is not sufficient to outweigh plaintiff’s right to privacy in her medical records. 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.) Given the right to privacy inherent in plaintiff’s medical records, defendant’s interest in ascertaining the veracity of plaintiff’s allegations does not warrant a fishing expedition. 

The document requests in the subpoena issued to CoraMed Healthcare are overbroad. The Court is under no obligation to redraft the requests in the subpoenas. (Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 851 [“The court was not under any obligation to redraft plaintiff's interrogatories so that proper questions would be presented for consideration”].)

The motion to quash the subpoena issued to CoraMed Healthcare is GRANTED. The deposition subpoena issued to CoraMed Healthcare on August 22, 2022 is QUASHED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Given the potential relevance of the requested documents and defendant’s general right to discovery, the Court finds that defendants acted with substantial justification in issuing the subpoena.