Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 20SMCV00612, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00612    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse | Department 200

Background

On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff John Doe filed this complaint against Defendant Sapient Investigations, a consumer reporting agency, alleging that Defendant issued an erroneous employment background check report. Plaintiff alleges that the report was a narrative report which cast Plaintiff in a negative light, including portraying Plaintiff as being involved in a federal criminal case that involved his former company, OtisMed. Plaintiff claims that the report was erroneous and caused Plaintiff to be denied a senior executive position at the company Accuray.

Plaintiff alleges causes of action under both the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., Cal. Civ. Code § 1786 et seq.)

            Plaintiff now moves to quash portions of the Civil Subpoena and Request for Production of Documents that Defendant served on Smiths’ Medical. Defendant has opposed this motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply.

Legal Standard

            “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, 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) … 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) “The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a).)

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to quash portions of the subpoena of Plaintiff’s current employer, Smiths’ Medical. Plaintiff argues certain requested information is irrelevant, violates his right to privacy, and could be obtained through less intrusive means. Plaintiff requests quashing the portions of the subpoena that request documents from Smiths’ Medical relating to:

1. The hiring process for Wilson Constantine, including applications, resumes, background investigations and all other documents reflecting the steps taken by Smiths’ Medical (now ICU Medical, Inc.) in the interviewing, selection and hiring of Wilson Constantine.

2. Complete copies of all materials submitted by Wilson Constantine in connection with his hiring at Smiths’ Medical (now ICU Medical, Inc.), including but not limited to applications, questionnaires, resumes, portfolios, publications and other documents of any type that addressed his qualifications and experience.

Plaintiff also requests quashing of the following categories of examination:

1. The interview process conducted by Smiths’ Medical (now ICU Medical, Inc.) in the hiring process of Wilson Constantine as President, Smith America.

2. The qualifications and experience claimed by Wilson Constantine during the interview process for the position of President, Smiths’ America (now ICU Medical, Inc.)

Plaintiff, as the party asserting the right of privacy, bears the initial burden of demonstrating (1) a “legally protected privacy interest”; (2) an “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances”; and (3) a “threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) If Plaintiff meets this standard, Defendant must then show that the requested documents are “directly relevant” to the litigation. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387.) Direct relevance, moreover, will not automatically open the door to the information sought; there still remains a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 557, 567.) As a result, the courts must balance the rights of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interest of the person(s) subject to discovery. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833, 842.) “Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice” for showing direct relevance as to private information sought in discovery. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017-1020.)

There is a privacy interest as to one's personnel files. (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 756; San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097.) Here, Defendant is seeking evidence from Plaintiff’s personnel files from his current employer, specifically seeking information about the hiring process of Plaintiff. Defendant argues that there is no privacy concern because the subpoena does not seek past employment records or current performance records. However, this is irrelevant because the information sought is still in Plaintiff’s employment personnel file with his current employer and seeks information that would invade Plaintiff’s privacy rights.

Furthermore, Defendant does not show that the information sought is directly relevant to the litigation. Defendants allege that the records are relevant to the issues of causation and damages. Specifically, Defendant states that the information is relevant because Defendant will claim that Plaintiff was not hired by Accuray based on the report, but rather because Plaintiff concealed his previous employment at OtisMed, causing board members at Accuray to become concerned about the lack of transparency and reject Plaintiff as a candidate for their position. Defendant claims that the information sought is relevant because “If [Plaintiff] changed his approach and disclosed information regarding his OtisMed employment, that change is significant as a potential admission that his presentation at Accuray was deceptive.” (Opp. 7:17-19.)

Additionally, Defendants state that the information is relevant because Defendants will seek to prove that Plaintiff suffered no actual damages and the information sought is relevant to whether Plaintiff sustained damages.

Here, Defendant only shows that the information sought could potentially lead to a showing that Plaintiff was deceptive in his interview with Accuray. However, the Court fails to see how a showing that Plaintiff disclosed his employment with OtisMed at his interview with Smiths’ Medical would be relevant to the litigation, and Defendant does not elaborate further. Furthermore, because “[m]ere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice” for showing direct relevance as to private information sought in discovery, (Davis, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at 1017-1020,) and because Defendant only states that this could potentially show deceptiveness, Defendant does not meet this burden of showing direct relevance.

Additionally, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant could discover the information it seeks, namely if Plaintiff disclosed its employment with OtisMed to Smiths’ Medical, in a less intrusive manner through an interrogatory or deposition directed at Plaintiff.

The Court finds that the balancing of privacy interests and the need for discovery favors Plaintiff. The Court believes that the information sought in the subpoena that has been approved by Plaintiff, namely the information relating to Plaintiff’s compensation at Smiths’ Medical, suffices to provide Defendant with information necessary to prove damages.

Conclusion

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to quash the requested portions of the subpoena.

            Moving party to give notice.

Dated:

__________________________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court