Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV18798, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18798    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 14, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Records or for Protective Order

Moving Party: Bennett Ashley

Responding Party: Dreamline Aviation, LLC

T/R:     Plaintiff’s motion to quash or for a protective order is DENIED.

DEFENDANT 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.  

BACKGROUND 

 On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff Bennett Ashley filed a complaint against Defendant Dreamline Aviation, LLC, asserting causes of action for (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to pay all wages due; (5) failure to maintain required records; (6) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) unfair and unlawful business practices; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (9) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 6310, et seq.; (10) constructive wrongful discharge; (11) violation of Civil Code section 3344; and (12) misappropriation of name and/or likeness.  

ANALYSIS 

When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose personal records are sought, 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 and conditions as the court may specify.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.) 

            Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoena for production of business records to Plaintiff’s current employer, Weidner Property Management, LLC seeking Plaintiff’s entire personnel file and any records in Weidner’s possession that pertain to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that the subpoena is overbroad, not relevant, and violates his privacy rights. Plaintiff states he earns more at his current job than he did at Dreamline and therefore is not seeking damages for any ongoing wage loss. Moreover, Dreamline has never claimed that it fired Plaintiff for performance issues. And Plaintiff does not claim that Dreamline failed to accommodate any disability or medical restriction. Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks a protective order.

The subpoena seeks:

1. [Plaintiff’s] complete personnel file, including but not limited to, any employment application/resume, offer letters, hire letters, compensation, documents concerning evaluations of [Plaintiff’s] job performance, documents which state [Plaintiff’s] start date, job description, and correspondence with [Plaintiff].

2. All documents concerning any remuneration offered to and/or received by [Plaintiff] for any reason during the Relevant Time Frame, including but not limited to documents concerning payroll wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, severance, or release payments.

3. All documents concerning any employee benefits offered to and/or received by [Plaintiff] during the Relevant Time Frame, including but not limited to medical, dental, vision, and/or life insurance, retirement benefits, 401Ks, stock options, in-kind bonuses and/or employee savings plans.

4.  All documents concerning work restrictions and/or limitations Subject had during his employment within the Relevant Time Frame (including the essential functions of each position.)

(Id.)

Under Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37, the 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. (Id.) The party seeking the 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. A court must then balance these competing considerations. (Id. at 37–40.)

California’s Constitutional right to privacy protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive information regarding one’s personal life.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978)20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)  This includes employment records.  (See Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526; and El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345.)  Plaintiff’s employment records are protected by the right to privacy.

Defendant argues that the records from his current employer would show that Plaintiff resigned from Dreamline because Plaintiff found an “incredible opportunity” with Weidner, not because of any unlawful conduct he allegedly experienced. The reason for Plaintiff’s termination is directly relevant to his constructive termination theories of liability. Defendant also contends that the records are relevant for mitigation of damages.  Plaintiff alleges emotional distress and Defendant is entitled to discover whether any collateral sources caused the emotional distress.

The Court finds that Plaintiff does not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy concerning these records in this case. This is an employment lawsuit in which ascertaining the basis for Plaintiff’s termination is critical. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that intolerable working conditions led him to resign. Defendant may obtain these records to support its defense that Plaintiff simply found a better opportunity.  

The threatened intrusion is minimal because Defendant offered a protective order shielding these documents from public disclosure. (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38 (“[I]f intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, privacy concerns are assuaged.”).)

The motion is denied.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification. Sanctions are not awarded.