TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Maria Cervantes Reyes’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena for Employment Records is DENIED.

Legal Standard

When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose personal records are sought, 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 and conditions as the court may specify.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.) 

There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (See id.)

The court can make an order quashing or modifying a subpoena as necessary to protect a person from “unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

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. (Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37.) 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. (Id. 7 Cal. 4^th at pp. 37–40.) 

When privacy rights are implicated, the broad sweep of discovery is significantly narrowed, such that information can be discovered on a showing of a particularized need by the party seeking discovery, and by demonstrating that the discovery sought is directly relevant to a claim or defense, and that there is no less intrusive alternative.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844.)  “Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice” for showing direct relevance as to private information sought in discovery. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017-1020 [directing trial court to grant motion to quash as to discovery request that was not narrowly drawn to enable the court to evaluate the appropriate extent of disclosure].)  If the court determines that the records are directly relevant to the action, it must carefully balance the need for discovery against the right of privacy.  (Id. at 525.)  The party seeking the discovery must show that the information cannot be obtained through depositions or non-confidential sources, and if discovery is allowed it must be minimally intrusive.  (Harding Lawson Assocs. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)

Discussion

Legal Standard

When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose personal records are sought, 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 and conditions as the court may specify.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.) 

There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (See id.)

The court can make an order quashing or modifying a subpoena as necessary to protect a person from “unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

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. (Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37.) 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. (Id. 7 Cal. 4^th at pp. 37–40.) 

When privacy rights are implicated, the broad sweep of discovery is significantly narrowed, such that information can be discovered on a showing of a particularized need by the party seeking discovery, and by demonstrating that the discovery sought is directly relevant to a claim or defense, and that there is no less intrusive alternative.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844.)  “Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice” for showing direct relevance as to private information sought in discovery. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017-1020 [directing trial court to grant motion to quash as to discovery request that was not narrowly drawn to enable the court to evaluate the appropriate extent of disclosure].)  If the court determines that the records are directly relevant to the action, it must carefully balance the need for discovery against the right of privacy.  (Id. at 525.)  The party seeking the discovery must show that the information cannot be obtained through depositions or non-confidential sources, and if discovery is allowed it must be minimally intrusive.  (Harding Lawson Assocs. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)

Discussion

A motion to compel or quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition¿must be accompanied by a separate statement¿setting forth the particular documents or demands at issue and the factual and legal reasons why production should not be compelled.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).)¿ 

Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement for the Motion.  As such, Plaintiff’s Motion is procedurally defective. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED   

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.