Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV01868, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 24CHCV01868 Hearing Date: September 18, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 9/18/24
Case 24CHCV01868
MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
Motion filed on 7/12/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Melina Angulo
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Aerospace Dynamics
International, Inc. and Precision Castparts Corp.
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The request to quash the entire Subpoena
for Production of Records is denied as is the
alternative request for a protective order. Alternatively, the Court modifies the subpoena
as set forth below. Both Plaintiff’s and
Defendants’ requests for sanctions are denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of the termination of Plaintiff Melina
Angulo’s (Plaintiff) employment with Defendant Aerospace Dynamics
International, Inc. (ADI). In August
2023, Plaintiff applied to work for ADI and was hired as a Supply Chain Manager
with a starting date of 10/2/23. (See
Trujillo Decl. ¶¶2-3). Soon after
beginning work, ADI placed Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan
(PIP). (Id. ¶3). ADI terminated Plaintiff’s employment on
11/2/23. Id.
On 5/15/24, Plaintiff filed this action against ADI and
Defendant Precision Castparts Corp. (PCC) alleging causes of action for: (1)
Marital Status Discrimination; (2) Sex Discrimination; (3) Marital Status
and/or Sex Discrimination; (4) Marital Status Harassment, Hostile Work
Environment; (5) Sex Harassment, Hostile Work Environment; (6) Marital Status
and/or Sex Harassment, Hostile Work Environment; (7) Retaliation; (8) Failure
to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation; and (9) Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
Plaintiff seeks damages based on past and future lost income and
benefits. (Complaint, Prayer ¶3).
On 7/1/24, ADI and PCC (collectively, Defendants) filed
their answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for: (1)
Breach of Employment Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing and (3) Unjust Enrichment. Defendants’
affirmative defenses include Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages, failure
to exercise due diligence in her efforts to mitigate damages, unclean hands,
waiver and offset. (Answer ¶¶18, 32, 35,
37).
On 6/7/24, Defendants served Plaintiff with notice that
they would serving a Subpoena for Production of Business Records (Subpoena) on
Plaintiff’s former employer, Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. (Pentair). (See Bell Decl., ¶2, Ex.A). The Subpoena seeks the following documents: (1)
Plaintiff’s application for employment at Pentair; (2) Any resume for Plaintiff
that is in Pentair’s possession; (3) The job description for the position(s)
that Plaintiff held while employed by Pentair; (4) All documents regarding,
referencing, relating to, and/or pertaining to any discipline that Plaintiff
received while employed at Pentair; (5) All documents regarding, referencing,
relating to, and/or pertaining to the reason that Plaintiff no longer works for
Pentair; (6) All documents stating the dates during which Plaintiff was
employed at Pentair; (7) All itemized wage statements issued to Plaintiff
during her employment with Pentair; and (8) Documents sufficient to show the
amount of wages paid to Plaintiff during each pay period that she worked for
Pentair.
After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the
issues Plaintiff had with the Subpoena, on 7/12/24, Plaintiff filed and served
the instant motion seeking an order quashing Defendants’ Subpoena to
Pentair. Alternatively, Plaintiff
requests a protective order to where production is limited to records
pertaining to Plaintiff’s applications for employment, reasons for leaving, and
pay/benefits records. Additionally,
Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants and their counsel, Ethan W.
Smith of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount
of $4,125.00.
On 8/21/24, the Court signed a Protective Order pursuant
to the stipulation of the parties whereby Plaintiff has the right to designate
as confidential any documents that she believes in good faith contain
non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment.
Defendants have opposed the motion and Plaintiff has
filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
A party may make a motion to quash, modify or direct
compliance with a subpoena for the production of records. See CCP 1987.1; CCP 2025.420(b); Monarch
Healthcare (2000) 78 CA4th 1282, 1287.
The Court has discretion to make any other appropriate order to protect
the parties (or the witnesses) from unreasonable or oppressive demands,
including unreasonable violations of an individual’s right of privacy. CCP 1987.1.
The right to discovery is broad allowing a party to
“obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion
made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CCP 2017.010; See also Williams
(2017) 3 C5th 531, 541-542.
Employees have a right to privacy in their personnel records. Board of Trustees (1981) 119 CA3d 516;
Harding Lawson Associates (1992) 10 CA4th 7. However, an individual’s right to privacy is
not absolute. See Lantz
(1994) 28 CA4th 1839, 1854. For example,
where a person files a lawsuit, his/her right to privacy is waived with regard
to matters directly relevant to the issues in the action and essential to the
fair resolution of the lawsuit See
Lantz, supra; Loder (1997) 14 C4th 846; Davis
(1992) 7 CA4th 1008, 1014.
The disclosure of employment records is not unusual in
cases such as this. See Ragge
(C.D. Cal. 1995) 165 F.R.D. 601, 604.
Plaintiff’s job description and dates of employment at Pentair are
directly relevant to Plaintiff’s alleged damages and Defendants’ defenses in
this action. The job description for the
position Plaintiff held at Pentair is not private because such information was prepared by Pentair to describe the duties of
the position that Plaintiff held. Plaintiff
also has no privacy interest in the dates of her employment because she
voluntarily disclosed the dates to ADI in
applying for the position which is the subject of this action. (Trujillo Decl. ¶2, Ex. A.); See Leibert
(1995) 32 CA4th 1693, 1701-1702.
Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks damages
related to lost income, evidence concerning her employers, dates of employment,
and job duties prior to her employment with ADI is directly relevant. This information is also directly relevant to
Plaintiff’s duty and efforts to mitigate her damages. The documents Defendants seek in the Subpoena
do not relate to Plaintiff’s sexual, health, or financial matters; therefore,
they are unlikely to be confidential in nature. See Ragge, supra at 604.
Even if any sensitive personal information is included in
job description or Plaintiff’s dates of employment, as noted above, a
protective order has already been entered in this case “to facilitate the
exchange of information and documents which may be subject to confidentiality
limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights…
.” (Smith Decl., Ex.D); See Ragge,
supra at 605.
Documents regarding Plaintiff’s job description and dates
of employment at Pentair are also relevant to Plaintiff’s credibility to the
extent that the information may contradict information provided by Plaintiff
through written discovery and deposition testimony. See Ragge, supra at 604.
However, the Court finds that the wording of Category 6,
“All DOCUMENTS stating the dates during which [Plaintiff] was employed by
PENTAIR,” is overbroad as it could be construed to include all documents in
Plaintiff’s personnel file if they are dated during Plaintiff’s
employment. Therefore, the Court
modifies Category 6 to: “All DOCUMENTS which list the
dates of ANGULO was employed by PENTAIR.
This category does not require the production of all documents which are
dated during Plaintiff’s employment with Pentair.”
The Court finds that Plaintiff waived any privacy right
in her application and resume provided to Pentair. The information contained in these documents bears
on Plaintiff’s claimed damages and Plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate same. Again, to the extent any of the information contradicts
information provided by Plaintiff in discovery it is relevant to Plaintiff’s
credibility. Also, as noted above, to the extent any sensitive
personal information is included in these documents, the protective order
already in place is sufficient to protect Plaintiff’s privacy rights.
Documents regarding Plaintiff’s disciplinary records,
reasons for termination and wage records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s
qualifications and performance for her position at ADI. Additionally, such documents are also
relevant to Defendants’ defenses and assessment of damages. These records may also be relevant to
Plaintiff’s credibility as she claims that there are no disciplinary records to
discover. (Smith Decl., Ex.G,
p.22:6-15). If Plaintiff’s statement is
true, no disciplinary records will be produced rendering the privacy issue moot
as to such records. As such, the
production of such documents is necessary for the fair resolution of this
lawsuit. See Starr 2017 WL
1400114 at *3; Davis 2017 WL 11633478, at *7.
Documents from past employers regarding Plaintiff’s work
history and job skills are also necessary for Defendants’ experts’ evaluation of
Plaintiff’s mitigation efforts and loss of earnings claim. See Crawford 2023 WL 6130416; Peterson
2023 WL 9116980.
As noted above, the documents sought via the subject
subpoena may confirm or contradict Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Similarly, the information may also confirm
or contradict Plaintiff’s anticipated trial testimony. Defendants are entitled to obtain independent
verification of Plaintiff’s testimony where possible to assist the jury in
determining Plaintiff’s credibility. See
Evidence Code 780.
Both Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ requests for sanctions
are denied. CCP 1987.1(a) provides:
“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.”
The Court does not find that either Plaintiff or
Defendants acted in bad faith. While the
Court is not quashing the subpoena in its entirety as requested, as noted
above, the Court is modifying Category 6
of the documents sought. As such, the
Court finds that Plaintiff made the motion with substantial justification.
CONCLUSION
The request to quash the entire Subpoena for Production
of Records is denied as is the alternative request for a protective order. Alternatively, the Court modifies Category 6
of the subpoena to require the production of: “All DOCUMENTS which list the
dates of ANGULO was employed by PENTAIR.
This category does not require the production of all documents which are
dated during Plaintiff’s employment with Pentair.”
Both Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ requests for sanctions
are denied.