Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV04623, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants IPS Corporation, Weld-On Adhesives, Inc., Jeffrey Lemons, and Pratap Padalkar (collectively, “Defendants”)

This action arises out of an employment relationship. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination based on gender [Gov. Code § 12940(a)]; (2) harassment based on gender [Gov. Code § 12940(j)]; (3) discrimination based on disability [Gov. Code § 12940(a)]; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations: (5) failure to engage in the interactive process [Gov. Code § 12940(n); (6) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment [Gov. Code § 12940(k)]; (7) retaliation in violation of the FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940(h)]; (8) whistleblower retaliation [Labor Code § 1102.5]; (9) whistleblower retaliation [Labor Code § 6310]; and (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash Defendants’ deposition subpoena of employment records and request for sanctions (the “Motion”). Defendants filed an opposition (the “Opposition”) on December 20, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a reply (the “Reply”) on December 27, 2024.

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1987.1 states, “[w]hen 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, …, upon motion reasonably made by the party, the witness, or any consumer described in Section 1985.3, 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 such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (Id.) A motion to quash does require a separate statement, unless the party being subpoenaed did not provide any response to the subpoena. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5), (b)(6).)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (CCP § 2017.010.)

Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoena issued to Magnit Global, Plaintiff’s current employer, on the grounds that the subpoena is overbroad, invades Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy, the information sought is not directly relevant to the litigation and Defendants do not have a compelling need for the records sought. The subpoena seeks the following information: “Any and all documents referring or relating to ERIKA PINHEIRO's personnel records during his application process and employment with MAGNIT GLOBAL, including but not limited to employment applications, job offer, reference letters, certificates, diplomas, licenses, acceptance letters, job duties, job description, evaluation and/or performance reports, medical and sick leave requests, requests for short-term disability, requests for long-term disability, requests for time-off, and any written determination by MAGNIT GLOBAL as to any such request by ERIKA PINHEIRO, dates of employment and/or services, attendance and/or time records, termination records, payroll records, time cards, contracts, correspondence, emails, facsimiles, notes, memorandums, reports, charts, and/or spreadsheets, sales, and/or incentive agreements, sales and/or commission reports, awards, salaries, commissions, wage statements and/or paystubs, W-2s and/or I 099s, worker's compensation and/or disability claims, discipline, investigation reports, demands and complaints made against the company and/or coworkers, settlement agreements, arbitration demands, claims filed with EDD, complaints and/or lawsuits filed with the EEOC, CRD (formerly known as the DFEH), and/or any state or federal court.” (Nunez Decl., Ex. 1)

Defendants argue that the records sought are “discoverable, relevant, and admissible” because “Plaintiff’s evaluations and/or performance reports, requests for time off, requests for sick leave and disability, attendance and time records, awards, sales and/or commission reports, and discipline records would all speak to Plaintiff’s performance and inability to work. . . . Further, requests for long-term or short-term disability, and time off, will speak to Plaintiff’s alleged disability and its alleged affect on her ability to find work.” (Opp. pp. 5:28-6:5)

In the Complaint, Plaintiff prays for, among other things, “all actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without limitation loss of salary and benefits, together with prejudgment interest, according to proof.” (Compl. p. 30) Evidence of Plaintiff’s wages, benefits, and other forms of compensation, including her evaluations and/or performance reports, requests for time off, requests for sick leave and disability, attendance and time records, awards, sales and/or commission reports, and discipline records would all speak to Plaintiff’s performance and inability to work, and requests for long-term or short-term disability, and time off from her current employer are also relevant to assessing her damages claims.

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to quash a deposition notice, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust (CCP, § 2025.410 subd. (d).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants and their attorneys of record in the amount of $4,5060 based upon counsel’s rate of $500/hour for: (1) 5.0 hours drafting this Motion and the supporting documents; (2) 4.0 hours to respond to the Opposition and attend the hearing on this matter; and (3) $60 in filing fees. Because Plaintiff has unsuccessfully made a motion to quash a deposition notice, the Court also DENIES the sanctions request.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court