Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV02588, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02588    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This action stems from a motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff Adam Thomas Wolf (“Plaintiff”) moves to quash the business records subpoena Defendant Antonio Gomez Pineda, Jr. (“Defendant”) served on Factor’s Famous Deli and requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Defendant filed an untimely opposition to the motion.[1]

ANALYSIS

Motion to Quash

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

Defendant’s business records subpoena seeks “any and all employment records, wage records, personnel records, attendance records, employment applications, W-2’s, W-4’s, contracts, 1099’s, resumes, payroll records, vacation schedule, sick leave, leave of absence records, insurance records, benefits, evaluations and any other records, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically pertaining to the employment of Adam Wolf aka: Adam Thomas Wolf, DOB: 3/28/1963” for the period from 05/06/2014 to present.  (Ahn Decl., Ex. 1.) 

Plaintiff challenges the request on the grounds that (1) it invades Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy; and (2) the request is not narrowly tailored.

            Constitutional Right to Privacy

In support of the first argument, Plaintiff cites to Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 524-526 as standing for the proposition that because Plaintiff’s privacy rights are implicated by the documents in his employment files, Defendant has a burden to demonstrate a particularized need and direct relevance to the claim or defense.  That aspect of Board of Trustees was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in 2017 in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, which held the burden is on the party asserting the privacy interest to establish the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, against which the Court weighs the countervailing interests identified in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1.  The countervailing factors identified in Hill are (1) the reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances; and (2) the seriousness of the privacy invasion.

Plaintiff does not offer any argument or evidence establishing that the requested employee personnel records are an extensive or serious violation of Plaintiff’s privacy rights.  In the absence of any such argument or evidence, the Court assumes the employment records at issue contain ordinary records of Plaintiff’s employment dates, time off requests, salary, and discipline (if any), etc.  Thus, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the disclosure of these records would constitute a serious invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy.

Further, Plaintiff put these records directly at issue by seeking damages for lost wages and loss of earnings capacity.  As such, Plaintiff has a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy in preventing the disclosure of the employment related records.

Therefore, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s minimal privacy interest in his employment records prevents the requested discovery.

            Overbreadth

Second, Plaintiff argues that he has agreed to produce personnel file records from November 16, 2020 – one month prior to the vehicle collision – to the present, but the request for records dating back to May 6, 2014 is not narrowly tailored to Defendant’s need.  The Court disagrees that one month of records preceding the collision is sufficient.  Because Plaintiff seeks damages for loss of income and loss of earnings capacity, Plaintiff’s employment records in the years immediately preceding the collision will reveal any fluctuations in Plaintiff’s ordinary income and earnings capacity over time. 

That said, the Court agrees that six and a half years of records preceding the collision appears excessive.  As such, the Court limits the time period of the requested discovery to December 16, 2017 – three years immediately preceding the December 16, 2020 collision date – to the present.

Monetary Sanctions

In ruling on a motion to quash, “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., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

            Because the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that neither party acted without substantial justification.  As such, sanctions are not warranted. 

Therefore, the Court declines to award monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash.  The Court orders compliance with the subject Subpoena, but the subject Subpoena shall be limited to the time period of December 16, 2017 to the present.  Plaintiff’s motion is denied in all other respects including Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  September 4, 2024                                                 ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court