Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2023-00029141-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion to Quash (Civil) 37-2023-00029141-CU-OE-CTL TANTUM VS GRAIL INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Quash Subpoena, 01/17/2024

Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Business Records is DENIED.

There are two subpoenas each with a total of eight requests here. Request No. 1 sought Plaintiff's personnel, human resources, or other similar administrative file, including certain specific documents likely to be contained therein. Request No. 2 sought documents related to Plaintiff's hiring, including interview notes, interviewer feedback, and offer letter. Request No. 3 sought documents concerning Plaintiff's compensation. Request No. 4 sought Plaintiff's payroll and tax documents, such as paystubs and W-2s.

Request No. 5 sought performance reviews, evaluations, or feedback. Request No. 6 sought documents concerning disciplinary actions taken against Plaintiff. And Request No. 7 sought documents concerning any complaints or reports made by or concerning Plaintiff. Request No. 8 sought documents concerning Plaintiff's termination or resignation.

Request No. 1 - Plaintiff challenges Request No. 1 on the basis that it is overly broad. (See Mot. at p. 6.) As Plaintiff acknowledges, a deposition subpoena need only 'reasonably particulariz[e] each category of' documents sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410(a).) This does not require extraordinary precision.

Rather, 'the test for reasonable particularity is whether the request places a party upon reasonable notice of what is called for and what is not.' (Lee v. Lee (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021) 2021 WL 430696, at p. *4.) In other words, discovery requests only need to be 'sufficiently definite and limited in scope that it can be said to apprise a person of ordinary intelligence what documents are required and to enable the court to ascertain whether the requested documents have been produced.' (Ibid. [quoting Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co. (10th Cir. 2008) 526 F.3d 641, 649–50], bracket and ellipsis omitted.) Plaintiff contends that terms such as 'performance reviews,' 'disciplinary records,' 'resumes or CVs,' 'offer letters,' and 'applications for positions or roles,' are 'not described with reasonable particularity, vague, ambiguous and overbroad.' However, these terms are clear.

Plaintiff's primary objection to Request Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8 is that 'Plaintiff has already produced to GRAIL the information it needs.' (Mot. at p. 7.) Defendant contends her production, however, does not contain all of the documents sought by GRAIL.

GRAIL is entitled to 'discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.' (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.010.) Moreover, GRAIL is entitled to seek documents from nonparties, particularly where those nonparty records 'may contain different versions of documents [or] additional material.' (See Vista Corp. v. Smartner Info. Sys., Ltd. (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2007) 2007 WL 218771, at p. *3.) Whether and how the documents provided by Plaintiff differ from those provided by her post-GRAIL employer is relevant to Plaintiff's credibility and the strength of her claims.

Plaintiff contends Requests Nos. 5, 6, and 7 seek irrelevant information. 'For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it 'might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.'' (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096158  35 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TANTUM VS GRAIL INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00029141-CU-OE-CTL 566, 591.) Defendants have cited multiple cases where post-employment records, including records like performance evaluations and disciplinary records, are relevant to issues like the 'assessment of damages[, the] defense of failure to mitigate,' and credibility, which is always relevant. (See, e.g., Davis v. Kelly Services, Inc. (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2017) 2017 WL 10562943, at pp. *5–6; Frazier v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) 2011 WL 5854601, at p. *1 [records of complaints at other employers relevant to determine if plaintiff has a 'habit[], or pattern and practice, of making similar discrimination claims' against other employers]; Gragossian v. Cardinal Health Inc. (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) 2008 WL 11387063, at p. *4; see also Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 176, 181 [information regarding 'amount which the . . . employee has earned' and whether 'other employment was comparable' is necessary to establish damages or mitigation of damages]; Evid. Code, § 210.) Cases relied upon by plaintiff - Hinson v. Clairemont Community Hospital (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d, 1110, and Neuren v. Adduci, Mastriani, Meeks & Schill (D.C. Cir. 1995) 43 F.3d 1507 – involve questions of admissibility. This is discovery. The scope is broad.

'By bringing suit,' Plaintiff has implicitly waived any right of privacy to the extent discovery is directly relevant to her claim and 'essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.' (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842–843.) Any privacy concerns can be addressed through a protective order, of which defendant is agreeable.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096158  35