Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV18241, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18241 Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Dept: 40
23STCV18241 Aidee Jacqueline Tinoco Bucio v. Khowshro Benji, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S EDUCATIONAL RECORDS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
I. BACKGROUND
The first amended complaint alleges 21 causes of action arising from alleged harassment, discrimination, retaliation, among other claims in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Plaintiff, who was employed as a housekeeper, also alleges claims for assault and battery and wage and hour claims in violation of the Labor Code.
II. ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff requests an order to quash a subpoena issued by Defendants and served on Evans Adult Community School and Hollywood High School for the production of Plaintiff’s educational records. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests an order to modify the scope of the subpoena and/or the manner of production of the subpoenaed materials. Plaintiff contends the records are protected from disclosure by Plaintiff’s privacy rights. Defendants cannot show a compelling need for the records or that the records are directly relevant to a claim or defense. Plaintiff met and conferred with defense counsel but could not resolve the issues. The court should impose sanctions against both Defendants and their counsel.
In opposition, Defendants contend that the records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s alleged lost wages and mitigation, English fluency, credibility, and Defendants’ denials of related allegations made by Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. The subpoenas have been narrowly tailored to the relevant time period of December 1, 2020, to the present. Privacy rights are not absolute. The court should impose sanctions against Plaintiff.
In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants seek overbroad and unrestricted access to Plaintiff’s educational records without any substantial justification. Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff attended Evans Adult Community school for the purpose of increasing her employment opportunities. Plaintiff did attend Apprende Institute for the purpose of pursuing a cosmetology license, which Defendants have not subpoenaed. The subpoenas are intended to harass Plaintiff as they are not directly relevant to any claim or defense. A protective order will not protect Plaintiff’s fundamental right to privacy of the information sought.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
The court can quash a subpoena to protect a party from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. The court has discretion to quash or modify subpoenas upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including issuing protective orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
IV. DISCUSSION
The constitutional right of privacy protects against disclosure of school records and transcripts. In Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, the court found that the plaintiff stated a cause of action for invasion of privacy in violation of the California Constitution, where the defendant transmitted plaintiff’s prior university transcripts to a third party. (Porten at 832.) The California Education Code bars disclosure of those records without consent or a court order. (James v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 [“The Education Code provides that (with exceptions not applicable here) ‘[a] school district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to any person without written parental consent or under judicial order . . ." (Ed. Code, § 49076), and that ‘information concerning a student shall be furnished in compliance with a court order. The school district shall make a reasonable effort to notify the parent and the pupil in advance of such compliance if lawfully possible within the requirements of the judicial order." (Ed. Code, § 49077.)
Where privacy rights are implicated, the requesting party must make a threshold showing that the records sought are directly relevant to a plaintiff’s claims and are essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.) An order compelling disclosure must be narrowly tailored so as not to infringe on constitutional rights. The party asserting privacy must establish the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)
Against that showing, the court must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies. (Id.). The court considers the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and whether there are less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755.)
The description of records sought in both subpoenas are identical and broadly request production of the following:
“Any and all documents and records regarding current or former student Aidee Jacqueline Tinoco Bucio (DOB: 03/07/1996, SSN: XXX-XX-6032) including, but not limited to, her application for admission, transcripts from accredited colleges and trade schools attended, admissions records, financial aid records, registration records, orientation records, enrollment records, educational planning records, academic records, curriculum, attendance records, grades/report cards, transcripts of classes, internship program records, internship credit reports, teacher/professor notes, student discipline records, bachelor's degrees, associate's degrees, certificates, and school withdrawal forms, from December 1, 2020 to the present.” (Mot. Ex. A, Att. 3.)
Plaintiff’s motion substantially complies with the requirements for a separate statement. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1345.) Plaintiff’s motion identifies verbatim the scope of documents subject to the subpoena, and Plaintiff included written communication identifying the basis for Plaintiff’s objection, namely on grounds of relevance, and constitutional privacy. Plaintiff also offered to produce the requested records by way of responses to interrogatories or a document request, which is less intrusive than a subpoena for all records. (Mot. Ex. A, 4:10-18; Ex. B, page 3.)
Plaintiff’s failure to include the foregoing information in a separate statement elevates form over substance and does not cause substantial prejudice to Defendants, who are adequately on notice of the basis for Plaintiff’s objections. The court must disregard errors in pleadings or proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)
Defendants have not shown how the broad scope of educational records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or a defense. Defendants contend that the documents are directly relevant to earning capacity, English fluency, and credibility. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages, which depends on proof of Plaintiff’s diligence (or lack thereof) in obtaining other work. (Opp. 5:17-25.) This can be verified by admission or enrollment records, copies of bachelor's degrees, associate's degrees, or certificates. Nor have Defendants established how the broad scope of records are relevant to English fluency, which can be determined by interrogatories.
Defendants have not persuasively demonstrated that the requests for transcripts or disciplinary records, credit reports, or financial aid records, are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s mitigation of damages. The scope of documents requested is overbroad. Whether or not Plaintiff withdrew from enrollment can be determined through written discovery and verified through a record of withdrawal, but there is no evidence that Plaintiff testified she has withdrawn from attendance. Additionally, aright of privacy exists as to a party's confidential financial affairs, even when the information sought is admittedly relevant to the litigation. (Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550.)
One of the factors to be considered by the court is whether there are less intrusive means of obtaining the records. (SCC Acquisitions , Inc. at 755; Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.) The scope of permitted disclosure “must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed by the least intrusive manner. Plaintiff has offered to produce documents specific to the issues identified by Defendants. (Mot. Ex. B, page 3.) Speculation that an unlimited disclosure of confidential records may recover something helpful does not meet the threshold burden permitting unfettered accessibility to documents protected from disclosure by Plaintiff’s constitutional privacy rights (Fults v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 899, 901.)
While Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s, fees incurred to obtain the requested relief, Plaintiff counsel’s declaration does not set forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2; § 2023.040.)
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoenas issued to Evans Community Adult School and Hollywood High School is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for imposition of sanctions is DENIED.