Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 22STCV27061, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jazmin Soberanis brings employment and related tort claims against her former employer, Bay Animal Hospital. Plaintiff, who suffers from asthma and related medical issues, alleges that Defendant refused to offer reasonable accommodations and terminated her employment.

A court may quash a subpoena entirely or partially, and issue an order to protect parties, witnesses or consumers from unreasonable or oppressive demands including violations of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) A motion to quash the production of documents or tangible things requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.13459(a)(5).) “[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoena served on Western Veterinary Services, Inc. (“Western”). Western employed Plaintiff immediately after her alleged termination from Defendant Bay Animal Hospital. (Orihuela Decl. Exh. D.) She no longer works there. (Id.)

Any and all documents or WRITINGS relating to the employment of JAZMIN DE GUADALUPE SOBERANIS including but not limited to employment application, employment contracts, employee resumes, personnel records and memoranda, compensation records, payroll records, attendance records, disciplinary actions, performance reviews, merit reviews, medical records, accident reports, benefit records, training records, worker's compensation claims and complaints, labor complaints to employer, labor complaints to any governmental agencies, and employer's response(s) to any complaints made by or caused by employee, for the dates employed.

Plaintiff contends the documents sought—in particular those seeking medical records—are irrelevant to the instant case and infringe upon her right to privacy. Relying on the Evidence Code, Plaintiff also contends that documents relating to her job performance amount to improper character evidence.

In opposition, Defendant contends the records are relevant “to the issue of the calculation of economic damages and Plaintiff’s duty to mitigate her damages,” and are “probative of issues raised in the present lawsuit,” especially given Plaintiff’s short tenure with that employer. (Opp. 3: 23-25.)

Here, Plaintiff has a recognized expectation of privacy in her employment records, although to an extent, Plaintiff has reduced that privacy interest by bringing this case. It also appears there are no feasible alternatives to obtain the documents sought.

When balancing Plaintiff’s privacy interests against Defendant’s interest in discovering documents that are particularly relevant to Defendant’s defense of the action, this court finds the balance shifts in favor of disclosure. The court agrees with Defendant that the categories are relevant and not overbroad. In addition to addressing Plaintiff’s work conditions with Western and the interplay with her disability, the documents sought are relevant to Plaintiff’s performance as an employee—questions Plaintiff has put in issue by bringing this action.

Moreover, Plaintiff mistakes admissibility at trial with discoverability. “[A]ny party may 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; Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 [“discovery is not limited to admissible evidence”].) Evidence is relevant if it “ha[s] any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code § 210.) The discovery here sought is relevant, even if it is ultimately not admissible at trial—a question this court expresses no opinion on now.

This conclusion is consistent with the legislature’s “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” such that any “doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal. 5th at 542.)

In making an order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

Although this Court’s initial reaction was that the Plaintiff’s motion to quash was specious, upon further reflection, this Court declines to award expenses as the Motion was not made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification. [FN 1]

Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 - This Court was encouraged, in substantial part, by the fact that the Plaintiff did not automatically request monetary sanctions as part of her motion to quash. That demonstrated some good faith in this Court’s opinion.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.