Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00052953-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 28, 2024

03/01/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00052953-CU-PO-CTL WILMORE VS ELDER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT JOHN ELDER'S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF'S CONFIDENTIAL AND IRRELEVANT EMPLOYMENT RECORDS is GRANTED, in part.

Plaintiff SHAUN WILMORE ('Plaintiff') seeks to quash the subpoenas served by Defendant JOHN ELDER ('Defendant') to Plaintiff's employer, Bill Howe Plumbing. Plaintiff objects based on privacy and overbreadth. The subpoena at issue seeks all documents relating to Plaintiff's employment, including pre-employment records. This Court has the authority to quash or modify the subpoena under CCP section 1987.1. Where the constitutional right to privacy is involved, the court must 'balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.' (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.) 'The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.' (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.) The California Supreme Court has described the manner to address privacy concerns in the context of discovery disputes as follows: The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.

[Citation] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.

A court must then balance these competing considerations.

(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) Disclosure of a party's medical history can be compelled only with respect to those medical conditions that are in issue by the action. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 864.) The party to a lawsuit is 'entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.' (Id.) 'In the context of discovery of confidential information in personnel files, even when such information is directly relevant to litigation, discovery will not be permitted until a balancing of the compelling need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy determines that disclosure is appropriate.' (El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 346 disapproved of by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 on other grounds.) '[I]f intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3081956  54 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WILMORE VS ELDER [IMAGED]  37-2023-00052953-CU-PO-CTL privacy concerns are assuaged.' (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38.) Plaintiff suggests the subpoena should be limited to two years of payroll and wage documents and exclude pre-incident records. Defendant has demonstrated Plaintiff has placed at issue Plaintiff's earnings and workers compensation claim by virtue of Plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings. The Court agrees Defendant's request for pre-employment records are not sufficiently relevant, such that the subpoena should be narrowed to exclude pre-employment records. Both parties indicate they are agreeable to a protective order. The Court is confused as to why the parties have not yet entered into a stipulated protective order. The Court believes limiting the records to five years of employment records and excluding pre-employment records is sufficient to assuage privacy concerns where a protective order is in place. In the absence of a stipulated protective order with terms agreed to by the parties, the Court orders a simple protective order to limit disclosure and use of the information obtained from the subpoena to this litigation. The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as noted above.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3081956  54