Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 22-1246328, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel

The plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Documents on Privilege Log.

The parties entered into a stipulation that resolved most of the issue raised by this motion.  (See ROA 68.)  The only issue remaining involves Request No. 44 and the documents in the privilege log.

Privilege Log

The documents in the privilege log are identified as attorney-client communications.  The motion argues the documents should be turned over because there is no way to tell if these documents really are privileged.

The plaintiff does not offer any concrete evidence suggesting why she is not convinced of their provenance.  Rather, she just says the communications “line up” with other documents and from the timeline it looks suspicious.  It would be one thing if she had some specific evidence.  But a blanket claim that she does not know if they are or not covered by the attorney-client privilege but it all looks suspicious is simply not enough.

This part of the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Request No. 44

Request for Production No. 44 has been the subject of the meet-and-confer process.  It is uncontested that the Request could involve documents and information protected by third parties’ right to privacy.  On the other hand, the defendants generally concede this Request also seeks information and documents that are discoverable.

It looks like the parties could resolve this on their own without court intervention.  However, if not, the court would be inclined to appoint a discovery referee, with costs to be apportioned.

This part of the motion is GRANTED subject to the appointment of a discovery referee.  The parties shall advise the court as to an acceptable discovery referee and an agreed method for apportionment of costs.

Motion to Quash

The plaintiff filed a motion to quash five subpoenas for employment records served on third parties House of Kabob, El Cortez Mexican Bar and Grill, AdvantageFirst Lending, Inc., and her current employers Breeze Funding, Inc., and Doordash, Inc.  She claims a right to privacy in the documents requested.

The court first notes that the plaintiff failed to file a separate statement as required by Rule 3.1345(a) of the California Rules of Court.  The court is inclined to overlook this failure to comply with the Rules and issue an order based on the merits of the claims.

Generally speaking, a person’s employment records are private and confidential.  The right to privacy is not absolute, however.  When those records are sought, the court must balance the right to privacy against the other side’s need for discovery.

It appears from the record before the court that the plaintiff’s employment history at her three prior places of employment (i.e., House of Kabob, El Cortez, and AdvantageFirst) were brief.  The plaintiff does not offer any particular reason why those employment files should be protected other than a general right to privacy.

As to her current employers, she is concerned that her job might be adversely impacted if the subpoenas are not quashed.  It is unclear exactly why her employment could be affected.  On the other hand, given the defendant will have obtained her employment records as to six prior employers (the three here and the three the plaintiff allowed already), the court does not see a reason to invade the plaintiff’s right to privacy as to those two.

The motion to quash is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The motion is GRANTED as to Breeze Funding, Inc., and Doordash, Inc., her current employers.  This is without prejudice to the defendant issuing new subpoenas to these employers if plaintiff’s deposition testimony or other evidence comes to the defendant’s attention that would tilt the balance towards disclosure.

The motion is DENIED as to House of Kabob, El Cortez Mexican Bar and Grill, and AdvantageFirst Lending, Inc., her three prior employers.  As with the motion to compel, supra, the court would be inclined to appoint a discovery referee subject to cost re-allocation if the plaintiff requests.

Notice

The defendant shall give notice.