Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV27816, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV27816 Hearing Date: June 21, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and replying papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff Joseph Walker (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mario Valdez (“Valdez”) AT&T Inc., and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On January 5, 2024, Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (erroneously sued and served as AT&T Inc.) (“AT&T”) filed an answer.
On January 26, 2024, the clerk entered Valdez’s default. On March 15, 2024, the Court vacated the default based on the parties’ stipulation. On March 18, 2024, Valdez filed an answer.
On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash AT&T’s subpoena for Plaintiff’s employment records and for sanctions, to be heard on May 16, 2024. On May 3, 2024, AT&T filed an opposition. On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to June 21, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 12, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to quash or modify the subpoena for Plaintiff’s records served on Jaw Design. Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose sanctions on AT&T.
AT&T asks the Court to deny the motion and impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
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.
* * *
(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).)
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.)
“ ‘[W]hile the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such “waiver” must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits by the fear of exposure of their private associational affiliations and activities.’ [Citation.] Therefore, . . . an implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842 (Vinson); see ibid. [“On occasion [a party's] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] opponent's right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery”]; see also Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s complaint
The complaint alleges the following:
On May 4, 2023, at or near 2007 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057, Defendants negligently owned, maintained, operated, entrusted, and/or drove a motor vehicle. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff was injured and sustained damages.
Defendants negligently hired, trained, managed, directed, instructed and/or supervised their agents and/or employees, causing the accident and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
Defendants negligently and carelessly serviced, repaired, maintained and/or inspected Defendants’ vehicle, causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.
While in the course and scope of his employment with AT&T, Valdez violated Vehicle Code sections including, but not limited to, Vehicle Code sections 21658, subdivision (a), and 22350 in causing the accident and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
Plaintiff seeks damages including wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, loss of earning capacity, future loss of earnings, and future medical expenses.
B. AT&T’s subpoena for business records
On February 21, 2024, AT&T served a deposition subpoena on Jaw Design. The subpoena asked Jaw Design to make “the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours.” Item 3 requested:
“Any and all documents and records pertaining to the employment of [Plaintiff] including but not limited to, preemployment applications, pre-employment medical evaluations, including pre-employment as well as periodic drug testing documentation, payroll and/or salary records including any pay reviews and/or pay raises, weekly, quarterly, annual payroll records, W-2 forms, attendance records and reports, tax, union and benefit records and reports, contracts, time sheets, time cards and any and all other records regarding the employment of [Plaintiff]. Also please include any and all disciplinary records and reports. Also please include any and all medicals records as well as any and all worker's compensation related records of any type. Also include doctor's notes and any disability records and reports.”
C. Plaintiff’s motion to quash
Plaintiff argues that AT&T’s subpoena violates his privacy rights and is “overbroad, non-particularized, and non-specific.” Despite the complaint’s request for damages including wage loss, loss of earning capacity, and future loss of earnings, Plaintiff asserts that he is “not making a loss of earnings claim.” (Motion p. 3.)
After meeting and conferring, the parties agreed to the following amended subpoena language:
“Documents and records pertaining to the employment of said employee referenced below that reference the neck, back, left shoulder, buttocks, and left hip from the date of his first application of employment to the present, including pre-employment applications and/or pre-employment medical evaluations that make such references; medical records as well as all workers’ compensation related records, and doctor’s notes and any disability records and reports that reference the neck, back, left shoulder, buttocks, and left hip from the date of the date of his first application of employment to the present.”
However, the parties continue to disagree about whether AT&T is entitled to review Plaintiff’s “attendance records and reports, time sheets, and time cards.” Plaintiff contends that (1) these records are not discoverable because he is not making a loss of earnings claim and (2) the subpoena seeking these documents violates his right to privacy. AT&T argues that it is seeking these records to evaluate Plaintiff’s bodily injury claim, not a loss of earnings claim. According to AT&T, Plaintiff’s attendance records and reports, time cards, and time sheets showing how many hours Plaintiff worked before and after the accident “bear directly on [AT&T’s] evaluation of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages.” (Opposition p. 2.)
The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff’s work hours before and after the accident are “directly relevant” to Plaintiff’s bodily injury claim. (See Vinson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 842.) Medical records and reports from medical experts (for example) would be directly relevant to this claim. AT&T apparently wishes to draw inferences about Plaintiff’s bodily injuries from evidence that he worked more, less, or the same amount before and after the accident. The relevance appears to be indirect at best.
The Court has weighed AT&T’s need for discovery of Plaintiff’s attendance records and reports, time sheets, and time cards against Plaintiff’s privacy rights and concludes that the subpoena requesting these records is overbroad and violates Plaintiff’s privacy rights. The Court narrows the subpoena’s description of requested records to include only the amended subpoena language quoted above.
The
Court finds that AT&T opposed Plaintiff’s motion without substantial
justification. (See Code Civ. Proc., §
1987.2, subd. (a).) Plaintiff requests $2,000.00 in sanctions based on eight
hours of attorney time at a rate of $250.00 per hour. Plaintiff’s counsel spent one hour on meet and confer efforts and 3.5 hours to
prepare the motion and anticipated spending .5 hours to review AT&T’s
opposition, one hour to prepare a reply, and two hours to appear for the
hearing. The Court grants Plaintiff
sanctions of $750.00 based on three hours of attorney time.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff Joseph Walker’s motion to quash the subpoena served by Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California on Jaw Design. The Court narrows the subpoena’s description of requested records to include only the following language:
“Documents and records pertaining to the employment of said employee referenced below that reference the neck, back, left shoulder, buttocks, and left hip from the date of his first application of employment to the present, including pre-employment applications and/or pre-employment medical evaluations that make such references; medical records as well as all workers’ compensation related records, and doctor’s notes and any disability records and reports that reference the neck, back, left shoulder, buttocks, and left hip from the date of the date of his first application of employment to the present.”
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff Joseph Walker’s request for sanctions. Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California and its counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff Joseph Walker $750.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
The Court DENIES Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California’s request 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.