Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01241, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01241    Hearing Date: July 31, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     July 31, 2024                           TRIAL DATE: TBD

CASE:                         APRIL A. VERLATO, an individual, v. CHRISTINA ARREOLA, aka CHRISTINA VELOZA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01241

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Christina Arreola, aka Christina Veloz

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff April A. Verlato

SERVICE:                              Filed May 3, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed July 18, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed July 24, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant moves to quash the deposition subpoena Plaintiff served on the Employment Development Department.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff April A. Verlato’s claim that the Defendant Christina Arreola (aka Christina Veloz) (“Defendant”) embezzled money from Plaintiff’s law firm by manipulated the law firm’s payroll system to receive a much higher pay that she was entitled to.

            On June 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) conversion/embezzlement, and (3) breach of fiduciary duty.

            On October 4, 2023, Defendant filed her answer to the complaint. On the same day, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against the Law Office of April A. Verlato, Plaintiff and Roes 1-150, alleging fifteen causes of action for: (1) pregnancy discrimination, (2) hostile work environment, (3) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation, (4) retaliation, (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) intentional misclassification as exempt employee, (8) failure to pay overtime, (9) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, (10) failure to provide lawful meal periods, (11) failure to provide lawful rest periods, (12) failure to pay earned wages, (13) failure to furnish compliant wage statements, (14) waiting time penalties, and (15) unlawful business practices.

            On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed her answer to the cross-complaint.

            Now, Defendant moves to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records that Plaintiff served on the Employment Development Department (“EDD”). Plaintiff opposed the instant motion.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides: “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), 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 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.”

DISCUSSION

             Defendant moves to quash a subpoena Plaintiff served on the EDD that sought “Any and all records, papers, charts, documents, reports, statements, receipts, communications relating to or referring to [Defendant]; telephone messages and all types of communications, correspondence, income and wages information, disability application and related documents or claims, business records and/or similar items of documentation, relating to [Defendant]” from January 2022 to present.  (Notice of Motion at pg. 2; Knez Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendant argues that the subpoena should be quashed because the records sought is protected by absolute privilege and the category under the subpoena is overly board. (Motion at pp. 2-5.)

            As to the former argument, Unemployment Insurance Code § 1094 makes clear that information obtained in the administration of the unemployment and disability insurance laws is for the exclusive use and information of the Director of Employment Development in the discharge of duties and must not be open to the public. (Unemp. Ins. Code § 1094(a).) Also, this information is not admissible in evidence in any action or special proceeding, “other than one arising out of the provisions of [Section 1094] or one described in Section 1095.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

The foregoing provisions manifest a clear legislative purpose to preserve the confidentiality of information submitted to the EDD. (Crest Catering Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 274.) EDD information may be used, to the extent necessary, in certain limited scenarios. (Unemp. Ins. Code § 1095.) Such purposes include presenting a claim for benefits, acquainting a worker with rights to benefits, furnishing employers with information enabling it to fulfill its obligations and safeguard its rights, etc. (Id.)  

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the underlying subpoena is improper because the information obtained by the EDD is presumed confidential. Notably, Plaintiff’s opposition fails to address this issue of absolute privilege. Rather, Plaintiff contends that the information sought by the underlying subpoena is relevant to both parties’ claims and that any privacy concerns are outweighed by Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining the subject discovery. (Opposition at pp. 3-5.) While Plaintiff may claim that Defendant filed a claim with the EDD while pretending to be Plaintiff, Plaintiff has failed to show how this would fall under one of the exceptions prescribed under Unemployment Insurance Code § 1095.

Accordingly, because the records sought by the underlying deposition subpoena are protected by absolute privilege per Unemployment Insurance Code § 1094, the instant motion is granted on this ground. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court declines to address Defendant’s second argument that the subpoena is overly broad.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena is GRANTED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   July 31, 2024                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court