Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV24376, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Elite Veterinary Corporation dba Animal Medical Center of the Antelope Valley

Plaintiff Kimberly Echeverria (“Echeverria” or “Plaintiff”) began working for Elite Veterinary Corporation (“Elite Veterinary”) in July 2021. Echeverria later became pregnant. During her pregnancy, Echeverria suffered extreme morning illness which forced her to miss work or caused her to begin work later than her scheduled shift. Because of her need for intermittent pregnancy leave and modest accommodation, Elite Veterinary reduced her hours and allegedly wrongfully terminated her. Since then, Echeverria has been unable to obtain employment in another veterinary clinic.

On October 26, 2022, Echeverria filed a Complaint against Elite Veterinary, and Does 1 through 10, for (1) Pregnancy/Gender Discrimination, (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Denial of Pregnancy Disability Leave Rights, (5) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate, (6) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process, and (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. Echeverria later amended the Complaint naming Elite Veterinary’s owner, Dr. David Lahijaniha (“Dr. David”), as Doe 1.

On February 21, 2024, Echeverria filed this motion to quash Elite Veterinary’s subpoena directed to Echeverria’s prior employer, North Valley Veterinary Clinic, Inc. (“North Valley”). Echeverria does not seek sanctions.

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 such as unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)¿

1. All documents that relate to any warning(s) you gave Kimberly Echeverria for being late to work during her employment with you;

2. All documents that reflect the date(s) when Kimberly Echeverria was late to work during her employment with you;

3. All documents that relate to any warning(s) you gave Kimberly Echeverria for not showing up for her scheduled shifts or “no calling/no showing” during her employment with you;

4. All documents that reflect the date(s) that Kimberly Echeverria failed to report for her schedule shift(s) or “no called/no showed” during her employment with you;

5. All documents that reflect the reason(s) you terminated Kimberly Echeverria's employment.

Plaintiff challenges the subpoena on the following grounds: (1) the subpoena seeks records that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) the subpoena violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

Elite Veterinary contends the subpoena seeks evidence relevant to addressing Echeverria’s testimony that Dr. David disparaged her in communicating with potential employers, thereby preventing employment opportunities after Elite Veterinary. In support, Elite Veterinary points to Echeverria’s testimony where she states, but for Dr. David’s interference, she would have been able to obtain subsequent employment at another veterinary clinic. (See Foster Decl., Ex. C.) Echeverria further testified that her inability to get another job at a veterinary clinic causes sleeplessness, migraines, and depression. (Id.) As such, Elite Veterinary contends the information sought—Echeverria’s disciplinary and termination history with North Valley—bears upon Echeverria’s ability to obtain employment with another veterinary clinic and generally, her damages claim.

The court disagrees. All subpoena categories relate to Echeverria’s work performance and the reasons for her termination from employment with North Valley. Defendant’s explicit explanation of relevance relates to its belief that the documents sought will demonstrate that Plaintiff is unable to obtain employment not because of statements made by Dr. David, but rather because of negative comments made by North Valley to prospective employers. That may be a viable theory but the categories identified in the subpoena don’t match that theory of relevance. None of the categories in the subpoena relate to whether North Valley was contacted by a prospective employer or responded in any way to a prospective employer. The subpoena fails to track Defendant’s theory of relevance.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court