Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00348, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00348    Hearing Date: November 22, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Angel Buenrostro’s Motion for Order Quashing Defendants’ Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Records from Wilbur Home Health and Medical Supply, Inc.

Respondent: Defendants R&C Corporation and Tony Rubio

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Angel Buenrostro’s Motion for Order Quashing Defendants’ Subpoena for Plaintiff’s Records from Wilbur Home Health and Medical Supply, Inc. is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a wage and hour action. In 1992, Defendants Tony Rubio and the R&C Corporation (R&C, collectively R&C Defendants) hired Plaintiff Angel Buenrostro as a medical supply delivery driver. In 2015, Buenrostro’s son, who also worked for the R&C Defendants, filed a workers’ compensation claim against the R&C Defendants. Buenrostro alleges the R&C Defendants then retaliated against Buenrostro by reclassifying all employees as independent contractors. In March 2022, Buenrostro was injured in an automobile collision while carrying out deliveries for the R&C Defendants. Buenrostro alleges the R&C Defendants failed to provide sick pay during Buenrostro’s absence and failed to accommodate Buenrostro’s medical restrictions when Buenrostro returned to work. Buenrostro then alleges the R&C Defendants fired Buenrostro and replaced Buenrostro with two younger drivers.

On February 6, 2023, Buenrostro filed a complaint against the R&C Defendants and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) willful misclassification, (2) failure to provide required rest periods, (3) failure to provide required meal periods, (4) failure to pay minimum wages, (5) failure to timely pay all wages due to discharged and/or quitting employees, (6) failure to timely pay all wages earned, (7) failure to pay overtime compensation for overtime hours worked, (8) failure to comply with paid sick leave requirements, (9) failure to maintain required records, (10) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, (11) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (12) age discrimination, (13) failure to provide timely, good faith, interactive process, (14) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, (15) retaliation and wrongful/constructive termination in violation of public policy, (16) retaliation and wrongful/constructive termination, (17) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (18) common law conversion, (19) compelling illegal purported agreements in violation of Labor Code section 432.5, (20) failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance, (21) unfair and unlawful business practices, and (22) violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

On June 27, 2023, Buenrostro filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action minus the seventeenth cause of action for IIED and eighteenth cause of action for common law conversion.

On October 27, 2023, Buenrostro filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for November 22 with a post mediation status conference/trial setting conference on June 18, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Buenrostro moves to quash the R&C Defendants’ subpoena to Wilbur Home Health and Medical Supply, Inc. (Wilbur) for Buenrostro’s employment records. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Buenrostro’s motion.

Legal Standard

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.)

An individual’s right of privacy 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.)  The responding party, 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 this standard is met, requesting party 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.)

“Legally recognized privacy interests [include]  . . . interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’) . . . .” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 (Hill).) “A particular class of information is private when well-established social norms recognize the need to maximize individual control over its dissemination and use to prevent unjustified embarrassment or indignity.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

As an initial matter, the R&C Defendants argue Buenrostro’s motion to quash violates Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court by failing to include a separate statement. Pursuant to Rule 3.1345, “[a]ny motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: . . . (5)  To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.” (Cal. Rules of Court, 3.1345, subd. (a)(5).) The court has the discretion to deny such a motion when this rule is not complied with. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) While the court acknowledges Buenrostro failed to provide a separate statement, the court declines to exercise its discretion to deny the motion to quash on this ground.

In this case, Buenrostro argues the subpoena is overbroad in time and scope. In relevant part, the subpoena requests “[a]ll memoranda pertaining to Plaintiff, any payment statements showing payments made to the Plaintiff, and any other documents that relate to or involve Plaintiff” from Buenrostro’s other employer, Wilbur. Buenrostro argues Buenrostro has a legitimate privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in Buenrostro’s employment records. The court agrees. (See San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097 [noting “personnel records and employment history are within the scope of the protection provided by the state and federal Constitutions”], disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.) The court also finds the R&C Defendants’ subpoena is a serious intrusion as it requests any memoranda pertaining to Buenrostro and any document that relates to or involves Buenrostro.

The court  finds Buenrostro successfully established a protected privacy interest in Buenrostro’s Wilbur employment records.  The R&C Defendants must now establish how these records are directly relevant to the present action. While the R&C Defendants’ asserts the subpoenaed employment records are directly relevant to their defenses in the present action, the R&C Defendants fail to explain how.  In fact, it is manifestly unclear how Buenrostro’s employment relationship with another entity has any effect on the action between Buenrostro and the R&C Defendants. Thus, the R&C Defendants fail to justify the grounds for their broad and overreaching subpoena of Buenrostro’s Wilbur employment records.

Accordingly, Buenrostro’s motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Buenrostro’s motion to quash the R&C Defendants’ subpoena of Buenrostro’s Wilbur employment records is GRANTED.