Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01224928, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Imani J. Bibbs on 8/2/22

Plaintiff moves to quash and for a protective order relating to subpoenas issued by Defendant to: (1) Make Me Pretty Hair Salon, 19805 Ventura Blvd., Woodland Hills, CA 91364; (2) Hyundai Capital America, 3161 Michelson Dr. Suite 1900, Irvine, CA 92612; (3) Westgroup Designs, Inc., 19520 Jamboree Rd, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612; and (4) Tilly’s Inc., 10 Whatney, Irvine, CA 92618. The motion is granted in part and denied in part as stated below.

In California, discovery is purposefully broad. With certain exceptions, parties have a right to inquire about any matter which – based on reason, logic and common sense – might (1) be admissible, (2) lead to admissible evidence, or (3) reasonably assist that party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial and/or facilitating resolution. See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557; Lewis v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 561, 572-573; Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1276-1277. Neither relevance nor admissibility are the test. Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1397.

Plaintiff’s request for relief is based upon her objection is that the sought records from her personnel files from previous employers violate her right of privacy. Confidential personnel files at a person's place of employment are within a zone of privacy. See Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-30 [disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557].) That having been said, the right of privacy is not absolute, and the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery.

A balancing of privacy versus need does not necessarily result in an absolute ruling to either permit discovery or not permit it. Rather, Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 557 suggests, the court may impose limitations upon the use of the records sought (e.g. protective order, limits on dissemination, redactions of social security numbers, and the like) to accommodate both parties’ needs and concerns.

The subpoenas at issue seek identical records from four different employers. They seek: “Any and all documents and records pertaining to the employment and earnings of the individual named herein, including, without limitation, all payroll, applications for employment, resumes, reference letters, interview notes and statements, correspondence, work absentee records, incident reports, pre-employment records including exam results, employee progress reports/evaluations, medical benefits, work history records and work injury records, W-2’s, Workers compensation claims records, complaints and grievances, disciplinary action taken, promotions/demotions from the first date of employment up to and including the present.”

Plaintiff proposed the following limitations: “Any and all documents and records, and all writings, including, but not limited to, payroll such as pay stubs indicating pay rate and hours worked, work absence records indicating time missed from work, incident reports related to injury only (limited to right knee), and workers compensation claims, all records indicated above from October 14, 2018 to present, pertaining to employment of IMANI JANICE BIBBS, DOB: 5/18/1991”

Here, in response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.6, Plaintiff identified these four employers and stated that the employment went as far back as October 2018. Thus, the subpoena seeks records from October 2018 to present. The incident that is the subject of this lawsuit occurred on October 14, 2019. Thus, while the subpoenas are not limited as to time, the subpoenas are not overbroad because these records would not go beyond October 2018 (approximately one year prior to the accident).

Next, Plaintiff alleges injury that includes, but is not limited to a right knee meniscus tear. See, Wilson Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A, Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 6.2. Plaintiff has tendered her physical health in this matter as a subject for the trier of fact to determine, thus it is fundamentally unfair to allow Plaintiff to hide behind a privacy objection and deny Defendant access to this material.

By filing a personal injury action, plaintiffs place in issue their past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon. All medical and/or psychological records relating to the claimed injuries are thus discoverable (“tender of issue” exception to physician-patient/psychotherapist-patient privileges.). [Evid. Code §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal3d 844, 862-64.

Here, it is without question that Plaintiff has placed her physical health at issue in this litigation. Moreover, while Plaintiff proposes to limit the documents to her right knee, her interrogatory responses are not so limited. Her response to Interrogatory No. 6.2 states that her injuries include, but are not limited to a right knee injury.

If Plaintiff suffered from any other purportedly debilitating physical ailments in the years leading up to the accident, the pain and/or mental distress that may have resulted from those physical ailments could be the source of her alleged injuries.

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s request to  limit the records to her right knee is DENIED..

Further, Plaintiff claims loss of earnings and potentially a loss of earning capacity. Thus, records relating to her resume, misconduct, performance reviews/evaluations are not irrelevant or overbroad, as these records would be relevant to determine whether there are other causes for loss of earnings and/or loss of earning capacity. Moreover, Defendant claims that Plaintiff only produced a series of hand written receipts in response to Defendant’s request for her to produce any and all documents that concern any damages that she suffered in the form of past or future lost income. These employment records would be necessary to verify, corroborate, refute, and/or add to the evidence provided by Plaintiff to support her claims.

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s request to limit the subpoena on these grounds is DENIED..

With regard to the issue of W-2s, tax records, both state and federal, are privileged to facilitate disclosure and payment of taxes. Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal. 2d 509, 513-14, and Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 1, 6. From Plaintiff’s proposed subpoena limitations, she concedes that payroll records, including pay stubs, would be discoverable. Defendant has failed to establish how W-2s would further assist them or a trier of fact with regards to Plaintiff’s loss of earning/loss of earning capacity claims.

Tentative Ruling: The motion to quash is Granted as to W-2s.

Sanctions: With regard to sanctions, given the mixed result of the motion, all requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice