Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV34514, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34514    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 21, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Subpoena for Business Records

Moving Party: Plaintiff Cheryl Neff

Responding Party: Defendant Procare Hospice LLC

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

“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.”  (CCP § 1987.1(a).) A motion to quash subpoena must be accompanied by a separate statement. (CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(5).)

Plaintiff moves to quash a subpoena for employment records from Plaintiff’s current employer. The subpoena requests,

All employment records, including but not limited to, documents related to the application process, documents related to the interview process, documents related to prospective employment, the personnel file, Human Resources file, disability/medical file, time records, performance reviews, disciplinary records, termination records, salary records (including records of all commissions and bonuses earned), workers' compensation claims, employee benefit records, charges or complaints (whether internal, state, federal, administrative, or otherwise), correspondence, and notes...

Plaintiff asserts the subpoena is overbroad and infringes on her right to privacy. Plaintiff also represents that she already produced her personnel file and current pay and benefits information, rendering the subpoena largely moot. In opposition, Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s purported personnel file is incomplete because it did not include page numbers, performance reviews, or payroll information.

As Plaintiff has produced her personnel file and pay information, the subpoena is unnecessary. There is no indication that Plaintiff has withheld information or documents. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.