TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Victoria Valdivia’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Personnel Records is GRANTED, in part. Defendants may seek Plaintiff’s payroll records, applications, performance reviews, discipline records, and records related to her termination of employment. Defendants may obtain records related to Plaintiff’s medical history, requests for accommodation, and requests for medical or disability leave only for the period from July through September 2022. 

No sanctions are awarded.

Moving party to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

I.  MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (a).) A party may bring a motion under this section. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (b)(1).)

Plaintiff Victoria Valdivia (Plaintiff) moves to quash a subpoena issued by Defendants Katayoun Motlagh, M.D. Inc. and Katayoun Motlagh (Defendants) to a nonparty Subway restaurant located on Rancho Vista Boulevard in Palmdale, The subpoena seeks “[a]ny and all documents and records, and all writings, including, but not limited to, employment, payroll, and applications for employment, with absence and incident reports, personnel records, pre-employment exam records and progress records, pertaining to the employment of Victoria Valdivia.” (Motion Exh. A.) Plaintiff argues that this subpoena seeks private personnel records, without limitation to any matter relevant to this case. (Motion at pp. 6–8.)

Defendants in opposition offer the following grounds to seek the requested records. They argue that evidence of Plaintiff’s payroll and personnel records are relevant to show whether she mitigated damages after the termination of employment that is at issue in this case. (Opposition at p. 6.) They argue that the subpoena may also uncover evidence related to the reason for any termination of employment, and thus uncover information related to the causes of Plaintiff’s distress alleged in the Complaint. (Opposition at p. 6; Complaint ¶ 34.) Defendants also suspect that Plaintiff worked for Subway while employed with Defendants, and seek to confirm whether the absences claimed by Plaintiff align with records of absences recorded in Subway’s files. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.) Defendants finally argue that the records are relevant to show her employability and credibility. (Opposition at p. 7.)

The California Constitution protects an individual’s right to privacy. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1013.) In the constitutional context, “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

Although employees like Plaintiff generally have a privacy right in their personnel records (See El Dorado Savings & Loan v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345, overruled on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.), such privacy rights are weakened when the employee whose records are sought is the plaintiff in an employment-related action. Defendants in these actions “are generally entitled to discover plaintiff’s previous employer’s payroll records and personnel files (including performance evaluations),” albeit with a “heightened showing of relevancy” required for records related to a plaintiff’s medical history. (Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 19:684.) “Evidence of the plaintiff's work history and earnings is a standard subject of discovery.” (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 296 fn. 9.)

Defendants have shown good cause for the production of a limited portion of the documents sought. Plaintiff’s payroll records from prior and subsequent employers may be sought as a matter of course, as such documents are relevant to show Plaintiff’s damages and mitigation thereof, a matter which she has put at issue in this litigation. Other materials in the personnel file related to Plaintiff’s employment — namely applications, performance reviews, discipline records, and termination — are relevant to show Plaintiff’s credibility and employability, per the authority above.

A limitation is appropriate, however, as to documents relating to Plaintiff’s medical history. Defendants contend “on information and belief” that Plaintiff worked at this Subway location while she was working for Defendants, and thus seek documents related to Plaintiff’s absences and medical leave to corroborate the requests she made to Defendants. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.) But the relevance of such discovery does not extend beyond the period Plaintiff was employed with Defendants, alleged to extend from July to September 2022. (Complaint ¶¶ 15, 25.) Given the additional layer of privacy afforded to such records, Defendants may seek documents related to Plaintiff’s medical history, requests for accommodation, and requests for medical or disability leave, only for the period from July through September 2022.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants may seek Plaintiff’s payroll records, applications, performance reviews, discipline records, and records related to her termination of employment. Defendants may obtain records related to Plaintiff’s medical history, requests for accommodation, and requests for medical or disability leave only for the period from July through September 2022.

II. SANCTIONS

“[I]n 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. § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

Defendants seek $1,840.00 in sanctions, representing a miscalculation of ten hours of attorney work at $230 per hour, which ought to yield a total of $2,300.00. (Arshakyan Decl. ¶ 9.)

 No sanctions are appropriate, as Plaintiff has obtained partial relief on this motion. Although Defendants argue that Plaintiff previously proposed and then withdrew a “first-look” agreement for the documents, whereby Plaintiff would review any documents first, then provide a log of all documents whose disclosure they found objectionable (Opposition at p. 9), the correspondence between the parties reveals a mutual abandonment of the “first-look” agreement, as Defendants’ counsel sought to avoid any “special arrangements” for Plaintiff’s prior review of documents. (Motion Exh. C.) Thus no sanctions are proper.