Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 20STCV04748 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20STCV04748, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV04748 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: A

Plaintiff Alicia Moreno/Santander’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Employment Records and Request for $1,110 in Sanctions against Defendant City of El Monte and/or Its Attorney of Record

Respondent: Defendant City of El Monte

Plaintiff Luis Martinez Moreno’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Employment Records and Request for $1,110 in Sanctions against Defendant City of El Monte and/or Its Attorney of Record

Respondent: Defendant City of El Monte

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Alicia Moreno/Santander’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Employment Records is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff Luis Martinez Moreno’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Employment Records is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action. On February 7, 2019, the son of Luis Martinez Moreno and Alicia Moreno/Santander (collectively, Plaintiffs) was hit and killed by a Metrolink train on Cogswell Road in the City of El Monte. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the City of El Monte (Defendant), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, County of Los Angeles, State of California acting by and through the California Department of Transportation, Metrolink acting by and through Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Jad Paul Lagana, and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) liability of public entities and public employees pursuant to Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, and 820; (2) dangerous condition of public property; (3) wrongful death; and (4) negligence.

On December 28, 2021, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, County of Los Angeles, the People of the State of California acting by and through the California Department of Transportation, Metrolink acting by and through Southern California Regional Rail Authority, and Roes 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) equitable indemnity, (2) apportionment and contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the present motions. Before filing the motions, Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel via email twice and Defendant’s counsel declined to withdraw the subpoenas. (Solis Decl., ¶ 4-7, Ex. 2-5.)

A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motions and a case management conference is set for December 6, 2022. A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motions to quash subpoenas of medical and billing records is set for December 7, 2022. A final status conference is set for June 5, 2023, and a jury trial is set for June 20.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoenas to Plaintiffs’ employers at La Blanquita Restaurant & Bakery and Hydro-Extrusions North America. Plaintiffs also seek sanctions in the amount of $1,110 for each subpoena. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motions.

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands such as unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

Employment Records

Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s subpoenas for the entirety of their employment history invade their privacy and are irrelevant because Plaintiffs do not seek economic damages and only seek noneconomic damages for loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support. The court agrees in part and disagrees in part.

The right of privacy of individuals is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.) In ruling on discovery motions, the Court must balance the privacy claims of the responding party with the requesting party’s need for the information. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718-722.)¿ Plaintiff, as the party asserting the right of privacy, bears the initial burden of demonstrating (1) a “legally protected privacy interest”; (2) an “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances”; and (3) a “threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (Williams).) If Plaintiff meets this standard, Defendant must then show that the requested documents are “directly relevant” to the litigation. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 858-859.)¿

In this case, employment records are generally protected by the right to privacy. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-529, disapproved on other grounds by Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531.) Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s requests are a “serious” intrusion, focusing on the relevance of the requests and the breadth of the requests which seek tax forms, time clock punches, requests for vacation, requests for sick time, sick days used, requests for therapist and mental health appointments, email correspondence, job performance, evaluations, annual reviews and job performance evaluations, written or verbal disciplinary action reports and records, requests for workers’ compensation, workers’ compensation reports and records, requests for FMLA, and FMLA reports and records for January 1, 2015 to present. (Motion, Ex. 1.)

Here, Defendant contends Plaintiffs’ employment records are required to determine the amount of financial support their deceased son provided. Plaintiffs respond that they are not seeking economic damages and only seek non-economic damages as stated in their discovery responses. (Reply, Ex. 5.) However, the prayer of Plaintiffs’ complaint requests damages for the loss of financial support. (Complaint, Prayer, ¶ 45.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ discovery responses state they reserve the right to amend, modify, or supplement the responses. (Reply, Ex. 5.) Absent a stipulation or amended complaint on this issue, discovery on Plaintiffs’ financial situation remains directly relevant.

Nonetheless, the court finds Defendant’s request is overbroad. First, Plaintiffs’ tax forms are privileged and not subject to disclosure. (Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-144.) In opposition, Defendant has not provided any authority or exceptions to this rule that justify disclosure in this case. Second, while payroll and benefits, time clock punches, requests for vacation, requests for sick time, sick days used for time off work, requests for workers’ compensation, workers’ compensation reports and records, requests for FMLA, and FMLA reports and records are relevant, the court does not find that Plaintiffs’ requests for therapist and mental health appointments, email correspondence, job performance evaluations, annual reviews, and disciplinary action reports and records are relevant to determining Plaintiffs’ financial situation.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $1,110 for each of Defendant’s two subpoenas. The court disagrees.

Sanctions may be awarded here pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a), which provides:

[I]n making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under 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).)

Here, the court does not find either party acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to quash are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court limits the language of Defendant’s subpoenas as to each Plaintiff as follows:

“Any and all employment records, a complete personnel file to include all employment records including payroll and benefits, time clock punches, requests for vacation, requests for sick time, sick days used for time off work, requests for workers' compensation, workers’ compensation reports and records, requests for FMLA, FMLA reports and records for time period(s) January 1, 2015, to present date, regarding [PLAINTIFF NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH]. This request DOES NOT include IRS Forms W-2 and 1099, requests for therapist and mental health appointments, email correspondence (except as relevant to the above requests), job performance evaluations, annual reviews and job performance evaluations, and written or verbal employment disciplinary action reports and records.”