Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV16537, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16537    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: 57

Plaintiff Akasha Farber ("Farmer") was formerly employed by Defendant Apeel Technology, Inc. ("Apeel").  Apeel terminated Farber's employment.  Following the termination, Farber sued Apeel, along with Jenny Du and James Rogers (collectively, "the Defendants").  Farber's operative Second Amended Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Defendants  failed to pay her wages and give her breaks that she was due as a result of Defendants' misclassification of her employment status in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code, retaliated against her and wrongfully terminated her for making complaints about her classification and concomitant denial of wage and benefits she was due, committed unfair business practices in violation of Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code,  and were negligent in making hiring and supervisory decisions.  Pending before the Court is Apeel's motion to quash a deposition subpoena for the production of business records that Farber issued to Culture Amp, Inc ("CAI")., a third party that conducted surveys for Apeel of its employees.  The Court is denying Apeel's motion.  In the Court's view, Apeel's objections to the subpoena on the grounds of relevance, employee privacy, and overbreadth are incorrect.

The surveys that CAI conducted are relevant to issues in the case. The surveys may reveal if other Apeel employees believed that they were misclassified and thus were not receiving wages and benefits that they were owed, just like Farber says she was; accordingly, the surveys would be relevant to Farber's claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair business practices.  The surveys also may reveal if other Apeel employees experienced mismanagement in the workplace, just like Farber says she did; accordingly, the surveys would be relevant to Farber's claims for negligent hiring and supervision.

Apeel's concerns for the privacy rights of third-party employees are overstated.  The surveys are anonymous.  Apeel has not shown how Farber will be able to ascertain the identities of any employees from the anonymous surveys.  To eliminate that possibility, Farber has agreed to modify the subpoena to CAI so that it seeks only the production of the anonymized employee survey results that CAI previously provided to Apeel and not any other material that may be responsive to the subpoena.

The subpoena is not overbroad.  It seeks results of surveys that CAI for just a 12-month period, calendar year 2022, which was the last full year in which Farber worked at Apeel.  (Farber alleges that she was terminated in spring 2023.) Furthermore, Farber's agreement to modify the subpoena along the lines discussed above also narrows the breadth of the subpoena.