Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV03877, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03877    Hearing Date: August 27, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Pierre Jean Francois (“Plaintiff”) moves, in six separate motions, for orders quashing the subpoenas served by Defendant Stitch Industries Inc. (“Stitch”) on the following non-parties:

A.    Best Buy Stores, LP (“Best Buy”)

B.    Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”);

C.    Candid Care Co. (“Candid”)

D.    Purple Comfort Innovations, LLC (“Purple Comfort”)

E.     Doordash, Inc. (“Doordash”); and

F.     Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (“Living Spaces”).

The Court GRANTS in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motions.  The Court spells out below the specific orders with respect to each non-party.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s and Stitch’s respective requests for monetary sanctions.

Background

This is an employment case. Plaintiff was employed by Stitch from February 6, 2023 until his termination on June 27, 2023.

Plaintiff filed this action on February 15, 2024, raising claims against Stitch for (1) discrimination based on race/color; (2) harassment based on race/color; (3) discrimination based on national origin; (4) harassment based on national origin; (5) discrimination based on sex/gender; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) whistleblower retaliation; and (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Stitch served the subpoenas at issue on these motions on a number of companies for which Plaintiff worked both before and after his employment with Stitch.    Plaintiff worked for each of these companies on approximately the following dates:

A.    Best Buy:  6/2015-2016

B.    Costco:  9/2016-9/2020

C.    Candid:  4/2021-1/2022

D.    Purple Comfort: 4/2022-2/2023

E.     Defendant Stitch: 2/2023-6/2023

F.     DoorDash: 8/2023-2/2024

G.    Living Spaces:  2/2024-Presumably to Present

The subpoenas to each party requests the following categories of documents:

1. Plaintiff’s entire personnel file;

2. Documents reflecting Plaintiff’s wage and/or salary history (withdrawn as to Costco);

3. Plaintiff’s applications for employment, resumes, letters of reference, and any reference or background checks (withdrawn as to Costco);

4. Documents related to Francois’ interview and hiring (withdrawn as to Costco);

5. Offer letters and employment agreements;

6. Plaintiff’s job descriptions;

7. Plaintiff’s performance evaluations;

8. Plaintiff’s written counseling, warnings, or disciplinary actions received by Plaintiff, if any;

9. Notes or other written records reflecting any oral counseling, warnings, or

disciplinary actions received by Plaintiff, if any;

10. Any complaints about Plaintiff from management, co-workers, or third parties;

11. Documents reflecting or relating to any investigation into any complaints about Plaintiff;

12. Any documents reflecting the reason for Plaintiff’s separation from employment (if applicable);

13. Any documents regarding any complaints by Plaintiff about other employees or managers or his employment generally;

14. Any documents reflecting an investigation or any other response by the responding party to Plaintiff’s complaints;

15. Any records reflecting or related to any complaints by Plaintiff against the

Company or any of its employees asserted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or any other governmental agency (withdrawn);

16. Any records reflecting any potential or actual legal claims by Plaintiff against the responding party (withdrawn);

17. Any records constituting or reflecting the responding party’s response to any administrative or legal claims threatened or asserted by Plaintiff against the responding party or any of its employees (withdrawn); and

18. Attendance records or other documents reflecting days on which Plaintiff

worked, such as timesheets and paystubs (withdrawn).

(See Castaneda Decl. in support of each motion; Exhibit 1).

Plaintiff’s and Stitch’s counsels met and conferred regarding the scope of the subpoenas and reached various agreements about certain categories reflected in the Court’s orders below.

The discovery that Stitch seeks that remains in dispute involves:

• Discipline, complaints about Plaintiff, and performance evaluations (requests 7- 11);

• His separation from employment (requests 1, as modified, and 12); and

• Any complaints made by Plaintiff (requests 13-14).

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.)

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, the court may, upon motion reasonably made, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  

In making an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)  

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the disputed records sought by Stitch are not discoverable because they are not admissible or otherwise relevant.  A matter is discoverable if it is “itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Stitch has argued that the information it seeks is highly relevant on issues such as:  determination of damages; Plaintiff’s claim of loss of reputation in this action; and whether there is evidence to prove that Plaintiff had “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge” (Evid. Code § 1101, subd. (b)) to assert claims against Stitch that lack merit. Moreover, the evidence may be relevant to showing that Stitch’s reasons for terminating Plaintiff are not pretextual. The Court agrees with Stitch’s arguments, as this information is potentially highly relevant. While Plaintiff argues that the evidence sought is solely inadmissible evidence of Plaintiff’s character under subdivision (a) of Evidence Code section 1101, that is not necessarily so. The  Court cannot make that nuanced determination about admissibility without considering the specific facts or evidence at issue after Plaintiff receives the discovery.

Plaintiff contends that Stitch’s subpoenas are overbroad and violate Plaintiff’s privacy rights. Although work history information is not categorically subject to privacy protections, “sensitive information ordinarily found in personnel files, such as evaluation of the person's work (script coverages and other critiques), income information, employment contracts and the like” can be subject to privacy protections. (Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1433; see also Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528 [personnel, tenure, and promotion files relating to initial employment, promotion, additional compensation, and termination which were communicated in confidence were covered by the communicator’s constitutional right to privacy] disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.)

“Courts must […] place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies [….] Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

Here, the Court has weighed the importance of the records to Stitch against Plaintiff’s privacy rights and attempted to strike the correct balance under the facts of this case.  Among the other factors that the Court has considered, the Court notes that Stitch has offered to stipulate to a protective order.  Plaintiff agrees that entry of such a protective order would address some of his privacy concerns.  The Court directs the parties to cooperate in agreeing to a stipulated protective order in the form provided on the LA Superior Court website as soon as possible.  All documents produced by the non-parties may be subject to that protective order.  However, to the extent that Plaintiff delays in executing the protective order, that shall not delay production of the documents at issue.

Moreover, these subpoenas are not a mere generalized “fishing expedition.”  Instead, Plaintiff told other Stitch witnesses that he was terminated from more than one employer and his separations were due to cultural and atmosphere issues.  (Polin Decl. ¶ 11.)  Moreover, Plaintiff failed to disclose his job immediately before Stitch, Purple Comfort, when applying to Stitch.

After balancing the relevant consideration the Court makes the following orders:

Best Buy

The Court grants in its entirety Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena to Best Buy.  Best Buy does not have to produce any documents in response to the subpoena. Plaintiff’s employment with Best Buy, which ended over eight years ago, is too remote to the events in this case to justify the invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy interest.

Purple Comfort

The Court denies in its entirety Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena to Purple Comfort.  Purple Comfort must produce all the documents responsive to the subpoena, except those solely responsive to categories that Stitch has agreed to withdraw.  Purple Comfort’s documents are of particularly high relevance because (a) Plaintiff worked for Purple Comfort immediately before working for Stitch and (b) Plaintiff failed to disclose his work for Purple Comfort when he applied to work at Stitch.

As a practical matter, this ruling  means that only Purple Comfort of all Plaintiff’s prior employers must produce Plaintiff’s performance evaluations if they exist.  The other categories have either been withdrawn by Stitch or are in any event permitted under the Court’s orders below with respect to the two other prior employers, Costco and Candid.

Costco and Candid

The are two prior employers of Plaintiff.

The Court denies the motion to quash the subpoenas to Costco and Candid as to the following categories.  Costco and Candid must therefore produce documents as to the following categories.  Where the parties have reached an agreement that documents as to a particular category would be produced, the Court has put an asterisk after the category number.

1. Plaintiff’s personnel file solely as it relates to termination/separation paperwork;

5.* Offer letters and employment agreements;

6.* Plaintiff’s job descriptions;

8. Plaintiff’s written counseling, warnings, or disciplinary actions received by Plaintiff, if any;

9. Notes or other written records reflecting any oral counseling, warnings, or

disciplinary actions received by Plaintiff, if any;

10. Any complaints about Plaintiff from management, co-workers, or third parties;

11. Documents reflecting or relating to any investigation into any complaints about Plaintiff;

12. Any documents reflecting the reason for Plaintiff’s separation from employment (if applicable);

13. Any documents regarding any complaints by Plaintiff about other employees or managers or his employment generally;

14. Any documents reflecting an investigation or any other response by the responding party to Plaintiff’s complaints;

The Court grants the motion to quash the subpoenas to Costco and Candid as to the following categories.  Costco and Candid should not produce documents solely responsive to these categories.  Where the parties have reached an agreement that Stitch has withdrawn the category, the Court places an asterisk after the category number.

1.* Plaintiff’s personnel file that is unrelated to the termination/separation paperwork and not responsive to any other category above.

2.* Documents reflecting Plaintiff’s wage and/or salary history;

3.* Plaintiff’s applications for employment, resumes, letters of reference, and any reference or background checks;

4.* Documents related to Francois’ interview and hiring;

7.  Plaintiff’s performance evaluations;

15.* Any records reflecting or related to any complaints by Plaintiff against the

Company or any of its employees asserted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or any other governmental agency;

16.* Any records reflecting any potential or actual legal claims by Plaintiff against the responding party;

17.* Any records constituting or reflecting the responding party’s response to any administrative or legal claims threatened or asserted by Plaintiff against the responding party or any of its employees; and

18.* Attendance records or other documents reflecting days on which Plaintiff

worked, such as timesheets and paystubs.

DoorDash and Living Spaces

These are two employers of Plaintiff after he worked for Stitch.  Living Spaces is apparently Plaintiff’s current employer.

The Court ultimately concludes that that for employers subsequent to Plaintiff’s employment at Stitch, any problems he experienced or complaints he made are of more marginal relevance to this case, and Plaintiff’s privacy interests are greater for these more recent employments.  Accordingly the Court will not permit discovery under the facts of this case of performance issues and complaints from these later employers.  The sole exception to this is the specifics and cause of any termination of employment, which may be relevant to issues of damages.

The Court therefore denies the motion to quash only as to the following categories.  DoorDash and Living Spaces must produce documents as to the following categories.  Where the parties have reached an agreement that documents as to a particular category would be produced, the Court has put an asterisk after the category numbers.

1. Plaintiff’s personnel file solely as it relates to termination/separation paperwork;

2.* Documents reflecting Plaintiff’s wage and/or salary history;

3.* Plaintiff’s applications for employment, resumes, letters of reference, and any reference letters but not background checks;

4.* Documents related to Francois’ interview and hiring;

5.* Offer letters and employment agreements;

6.* Plaintiff’s job descriptions; and

12. Any documents reflecting the reason for Plaintiff’s separation from employment (if applicable);

The Court grants the motion to quash as to DoorDash and Living Spaces as to the following categories.  DoorDash and Living Spaces should not produce documents solely responsive to these categories.  Where the parties have reached an agreement that Stitch has withdrawn the category, the Court places an asterisk after the category number.

1*. Plaintiff’s personnel file that is unrelated to the termination/separation paperwork and not responsive to any categories above.

7.  Plaintiff’s performance evaluations;

8.  Plaintiff’s written counseling, warnings, or disciplinary actions received by Plaintiff, if any;

9. Notes or other written records reflecting any oral counseling, warnings, or

disciplinary actions received by Plaintiff, if any;

10. Any complaints about Plaintiff from management, co-workers, or third parties;

11. Documents reflecting or relating to any investigation into any complaints about Plaintiff;

13. Any documents regarding any complaints by Plaintiff about other employees or managers or his employment generally;

14. Any documents reflecting an investigation or any other response by the responding party to Plaintiff’s complaints;

15.* Any records reflecting or related to any complaints by Plaintiff against the

Company or any of its employees asserted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or any other governmental agency;

16.* Any records reflecting any potential or actual legal claims by Plaintiff against the responding party;

17.* Any records constituting or reflecting the responding party’s response to any administrative or legal claims threatened or asserted by Plaintiff against the responding party or any of its employees; and

18.* Attendance records or other documents reflecting days on which Plaintiff

worked, such as timesheets and paystubs.

Sanctions

The Court denies Plaintiff’s and Stitch’s respective requests for sanctions.  Both parties have asserted reasonable positions and have made substantial efforts to settle this matter.  The parties have each prevailed on some issues and lost on some issues. Under these circumstances, no sanctions are appropriate.