Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 01151523, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena by Dale Rathburn

Plaintiff Dale Rathburn (“Plaintiff”) moves to quash the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (the “Subpoena”) served by Defendant Panasonic Avionics Corporation (“PAC”) on Northrop Grumman Corporation (“Northrop”) on March 10, 2022.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a), “[i]f 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.”

The Subpoena seeks Plaintiff’s employment records from Northrop for a period spanning over 18 months, including all documents related to compensation, job description, job performance, complaints made by or against Plaintiff, and any separation/termination. Plaintiff seeks to quash the Subpoena on the grounds that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in such records, the Subpoena is not narrowly tailored and seeks information that is not relevant here, and the information sought can be obtained through less intrusive means.

“The right of privacy is an ‘ “inalienable right” ’ secured by article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. [Citation.] The right of privacy protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of private or personal information and ‘extends to one’s confidential financial affairs as well as to the details of one's personal life.’ [Citation.]” (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754.) “The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged to accommodate a compelling public interest. [Citations.] One such interest, evidenced by California's broad discovery statutes, is ‘ “the historically important state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal proceedings.” ’ [Citation.]” (Moskowitz v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 316, disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.) Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, explains: “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citations.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interest disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interest or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. [Citation.]”.

Here, Plaintiff alleges he was employed by Panasonic for approximately 17 years. He alleges Panasonic had a widespread practice of institutionalized race discrimination under which employees of non-Chinese descent were routinely passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified Chinese colleagues, and that he was berated and intimidated by management. He claims he was terminated on July 11, 2019, as part of a purported reduction-in-force, but alleges the real reason was his age, race, and protected complaints. He claims he has suffered, among other things, financial insecurity and losses in wages, bonuses, benefits, career path opportunities. (Compl., ¶¶ 58, 65.)

The Court finds the information sought by the Subpoena to be relevant here. The documents related to Plaintiff’s pay and bonuses relate to Plaintiff’s claims for loss in wages and other benefits. The documents related to complaints made by or against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s job performance and separation/termination, relate to whether Plaintiff’s termination from employment with PAC was based on proper grounds. Plaintiff has failed to show any serious threatened invasion into his privacy. The Subpoena’s requests are narrowly tailored by time and scope. The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the information sought by the Subpoena can be obtained by less intrusive means. As demonstrated in Defendant’s Opposition, Plaintiff failed to answer at deposition straightforward questions related to his compensation and performance at Northrop. (See Defendant’s Ex. F at 64:8-11, 258:16-261:4.)

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Quash is DENIED.

Sanctions: The Court may, in its discretion, award monetary sanctions in 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(a).) The Court finds no substantial justification for Plaintiff’s Motion here. Thus, the Court awards PAC a total of $2,800 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.