Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV17395, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17395 Hearing Date: January 4, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 7, 2021, Plaintiff Deborah Russell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Oscar Castillo (“Castillo”), Deming Antonio Ingles (“Ingles”), D Exports LSR (“D Exports”), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On December 16, 2021, Defendants Castillo, Ingles, and D Exports (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed (1) a notice of motion to quash Defendants’ deposition subpoenas for Plaintiff’s employment records from the Law Offices of Karen P. Donahoe and for sanctions and (2) a notice of motion to quash Defendants’ deposition subpoenas for Plaintiff’s employment records from Alan Matkins and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on October 20, 2023. The Court continued the hearing to January 4, 2024.
On October 9, 2023, Defendants filed oppositions. On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed replies.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to quash the deposition subpoenas for her employment records from Law Offices of Karen P. Donahoe and Alan Matkins.
Defendants ask the Court to deny the motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides:
"(a) 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, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.
"(b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights."
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3, subdivision (g), provides in part:
“(g) Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. The failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense in any action for liability for improper release of records.
* * *
“No witness or deposition officer shall be required to produce personal records after receipt of notice that the motion has been brought by a consumer . . . except upon order of the court in which the action is pending or by agreement of the parties, witnesses, and consumers affected. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a), provides:
“(a) Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under 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).)
As a general rule, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)
When a party seeks discovery which impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover a person’s personal and financial matters. (Ibid.) The court must balance competing rights — the litigant’s right to discover relevant facts and the individual’s right to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Ibid.)
For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
DISCUSSION
A. Complaint
The complaint alleges the following.
On or about April 5, 2021, at the 105 East Freeway and Garfield Avenue in Paramount, California, Castillo, an employee of Ingles and D Export, crashed his vehicle into the back of Plaintiff’s vehicle while Plaintiff was at a complete stop.
The collision was caused by Castillo’s recklessness, carelessness and negligence. Castillo violated Vehicle Code section 22350, drove at an unsafe speed, failed to observe due care and precaution, failed to maintain proper and adequate control of the motor vehicle, and failed to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles. As a direct and proximate result of Castillo’s negligence and carelessness, Plaintiff suffered serious, painful and permanent bodily injuries, great physical pain and mental anguish, severe and substantial emotional distress, and loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has been and will be required to undergo medical treatment and to incur medical costs and expenses in order to alleviate injuries, pain and suffering, has been and will be precluded from engaging in normal activities and pursuits, and has lost earnings and earning capacity.
B. Subpoenas
On July 26, 2023, Defendants served deposition subpoenas on Law Offices of Karen P. Donahoe and Alan Matkins requesting Plaintiff’s employment records. The subpoena served on Law Offices of Karen P. Donahoe included a request for “incident reports, including disciplinary action taken.” The Court did not receive a copy of the deposition subpoena served on Alan Matkins but it evidently also asked for records involving disciplinary actions and incident reports.
C. Analysis
Plaintiff has filed notices of motion asking the Court to quash deposition subpoenas served on Law Offices of Karen P. Donahoe and Alan Matkin for Plaintiff’s employment records. Plaintiff argues the deposition subpoenas’ requests for records involving incident reports and disciplinary action violates Plaintiff’s privacy rights, is overbroad, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Although Plaintiff’s notices of motion refer to a “forthcoming motion” and “forthcoming Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the forthcoming Declaration of Gonzalo Morales, Esq.; [and] the forthcoming Separate Statement of Issues,” Plaintiff did not file these motions and supporting documents with the Court. Plaintiff served a motion to quash the deposition subpoena served on Law Offices of Karen P. Donahoe and supporting documents on Defendants, who have included copies of these documents in their opposition to that motion. However, Plaintiff did not serve a copy of a motion to quash the deposition subpoena served on Alan Matkins on Defendants and the Court does not have a copy of that motion. (See Mermelstein Dec. ¶ 8.)
Nonetheless, Defendants have addressed Plaintiff’s arguments on the merits, waiving the procedural defects in the motions.
Defendants argue that records involving incident reports and disciplinary action “are relevant because they are records that have a tendency to identify prior injury” and “documents of this sort have a high likelihood of containing information regarding prior injuries.” Defendants provide no further argument or support for this assertion.
“Confidential personnel files at a person’s place of employment are within a zone of privacy.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:308, p. 8C-110.)
Having weighed Plaintiff’s privacy interests against Defendants’ right to conduct discovery, the Court grants the motion and quashes the deposition subpoenas to the extent they seek records concerning disciplinary action or incident reports.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Deborah Russell’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena served by Defendants Oscar Castillo, Deming Antonio Ingles, and D Exports LSR on Alan Matkins. The Court quashes the deposition subpoena’s request for records of incident reports and disciplinary action.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Deborah Russell’s requests for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.