Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV11249, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11249    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: 55

HENDRIX v. KTLA, LLC                                                  20STCV11249

Hearing Date:  3/6/23,  Dept. 55

#2:   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS TO MAPLE COUNSELING CENTER.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff.

RP:  Defendants

Summary

On 3/20/20, Plaintiff BERNIE HENDRIX filed a Complaint.

On 7/6/21, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that the employer constructively terminated Plaintiff’s employment as camera operator, including by allowing ongoing sexual harassment by a coworker, and reducing hours, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaining about the harassment instead of putting up with it in order to get along with the other employee.

The causes of action are:

1) SEXUAL HARASSMENT, HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(J))

2) DISCRIMINATION (CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(A))

3) RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(H))

4) WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

5) FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION (CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(K))

6) SEXUAL ASSAULT AND BATTERY

7) NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION

8) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

9) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order quashing a subpoena served by defendants Nexstar Inc. as successor-in-interest to KTLA, LLC, and Robert Deane, on grounds including the following:

·         The records requested from Maple Counseling Center include documents that discuss Hendrix’s sexual history with people than the alleged perpetrator, without any showing of good cause. CCP § 2017.220.

·         Receiving the subpoena six days after its issuance did not give Plaintiff the time intended by the code to properly respond.

·         If service was effectuated via agreed electronic service, Plaintiff would have had all the time to respond as intended by the code.

RP Positions

Opposing parties advocate denying, on bases including the following:

·         Defendants withdrew the subpoena to Maple Counseling.  The Motion should be denied as moot.

·         Service of the subpoena was timely and valid, and email service was not the only method allowed.

·         The motion lacks a separate statement.

·         Plaintiff failed to meet and confer.

·         By asserting a causal link between his mental distress and defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff implicitly claims it was not caused by a preexisting mental condition, thereby raising the question of alternative sources for the distress. See Vinson v. Sup.Ct., 43 Cal.3d at 840. T

Tentative Ruling

The motion is ordered off calendar, as moot.

The opposing papers report that the subject subpoena has been withdrawn.

“Mootness is sometimes defined in terms of the court's loss of ability to grant effective relief.”  Breaux v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 730, 743.

*PLEASE INFORM THE COURT IF ALL PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING.  CALL THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*