Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV02282, Date: 2024-05-08 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: Defendant The Regents of the University of California (erroneously

On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff Darletha Matthews initiated this employment action against Defendant The Regents of the University of California (erroneously sued as “University of California” and “UCLA Medical Center”). On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendant alleging the following causes of action: (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Racial Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Accommodate; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; and (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of FEHA.

Plaintiff alleges that she was employed with Defendant as a registered nurse starting in October 2013. (FAC ¶ 6.) In June 2020, Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer and took an unpaid leave of absence the following month. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Around August 2020, Plaintiff requested an accommodation to not care for COVID-19 patients or suspected COVID-19 patients, but in September 2020, Defendant stated that it could not accommodate this request. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.) By November 2020, Plaintiff had an unplanned surgery due to an infection, and when she returned to work on January 12, 2021, she was afforded certain restrictions. (Id. at ¶ 11.) By June 15, 2021, Defendant could no longer accommodate her disability and placed her on an unpaid leave of absence. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff was then placed on a reassignment period, and despite applying to several positions, Plaintiff was turned away while non-African American nurses and those without disabilities with less experience were given those positions. (Id.at ¶ 13.) On June 8, 2022, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment due to her medical condition. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to quash relating to the business record subpoenas issued by Defendant to the following entities: (1) Valley Community Health, (2) Mend Urgent Care; (3) Cerebral Inc.; (4) Millennium Medical Associates, Inc.; and (5) MemorialCare.

On April 12, 2024, Defendant filed an omnibus opposition to the motions to quash relating to the subpoenas issued to Cerebral Inc. and Millennium Medical Associates, Inc. On April 16, 2024, Defendant filed an omnibus opposition to the motions to quash relating to the subpoenas issued to Valley Community Health and Mend Urgent Care. On April 23, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion to quash relating to the subpoena issued to MemorialCare.

On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed her replies to Defendant’s omnibus oppositions.

Code of Civil Procedure § 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. (See id.) A motion to quash does require a separate statement. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).)

“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. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).)¿¿¿ “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.060.)

Plaintiff seeks to quash the various subpoenas seeking her employment records with Valley Community Health, Mend Urgent Care, Cerebral Inc., Millennium Medical Associates, Inc. and MemorialCare. (Notices of Motion at pg. 2.)

Generally, an individual has a legally protected privacy interest with respect to his personnel, financial, and medical records. (See Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1019; Valley Bank of Nev. V. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656; Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1251; see also Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552).

Here, each subpoena seeks the following information: “Any and all DOCUMENTS wherever located which constitute EMPLOYMENT RECORDS as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.6 including, but not limited to resume, job application, personnel file, performance reviews, correspondence, memoranda, employment contract for services, and wage and payment records related to Darletha Matthews (DOB: 8-20-1982).” (Motions at pp. 3-4; Separate Statements at pg. 1; Hames Decls. ¶ 4, Exhs. C.) Plaintiff contends that the information sought by these subpoenas is not directly relevant to her claims, is inadmissible, and can be obtained through less intrusive means. (Motions at pp. 4-6.)

There can be no dispute that Plaintiff has a legally protected privacy interest with respect to her personnel records. (See Davis, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at 1019; Valley Bank of Nev., supra, 15 Cal.3d at 656; and Puerto, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at 1251.) Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the threatened intrusion is not serious. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552.) This is especially the case because the parties have entered into a protective order on August 15, 2023. Moreover, Defendant has a compelling interest in accessing those records, and the scope of discovery is broad. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 [allowing discovery of any matter 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.”]) As Defendant has pointed out in its oppositions, the information sought by these subpoenas are necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s alleged damages for lost wages and other compensation benefits and to support its defense of failure to mitigate damages. Thus, the subpoenas relating to Plaintiff’s past and current employment are proper.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to quash the business record subpoenas issued by Defendant on Valley Community Health, Mend Urgent Care, Cerebral Inc., Millennium Medical Associates, Inc. and MemorialCare are DENIED.

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