Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV20090, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20090    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE:       Defendant’s motion for a protective order is granted as to RFPs Nos. 5, 8, and 10.  

Background

              On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Juanita Marquez (“Plaintiff”) filed this PAGA action. In the operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Equinox Holdings Inc. (“Defendant”) violated sick leave provisions and failed to provide meal breaks or pay meal break premiums. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved employees in the same situation.

              On November 16, 2022, the Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer in part as to violations of Labor Code 216 and 1199. The Court sustained the demurrer as to all other Labor Code violations with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 16, 2022. Defendant filed a subsequent demurrer to the first amended complaint.

              On March 29, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendant filed a reply.

Request for Judicial Notice

              Defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of Minute Order issued March 10, 2021, in case number 20STCV39045. This unopposed request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code 452(d). However, the Court notes that the case can be cited for persuasive value only and is not binding on this Court.  

Legal Standard

              For good cause shown, a court may “make any order that justice requires to“protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(b).) This includes orders that requests for production need not be answered or that the time to respond be extended. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(b)(1), (2).)

Discussion

              Defendant moves for a protective order extending the time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery until 30 days after the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s demurrer. Defendant asserts that the demurrer alleges that the complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, so Defendant should be spared the expense and burden of responding to extensive and invasive discovery prior to the demurrer.

              On November 16, 2022, this Court ruled on Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer as to Labor Code sections 216 and 1199. However, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to all other Labor Code violations, finding that “Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue PAGA penalties against Equinox for Labor Code violations that occurred after her termination. [Citation.] Therefore, any alleged Labor Code violations that occurred after her termination from Equinox are time-barred. As stated above, Plaintiff fails to explain why the other Labor Code violations alleged in her Complaint are not time-barred.” (11/16/22 Minute Order.)  

              The Court does not determine the merits of the pending demurrer at this gesture, and only notes that the discovery at issue is pertaining to the PAGA penalties for violations that occurred after Plaintiff’s termination. (Mendoza Decl., Ex. B [RFPs Nos. 5, 8, 10].) Although the Notice of Motion is not clear which specific discovery that Defendant is seeking a protective order for, it is apparent that Defendant seeks a protective order for Requests for Production Nos. 5, 8, 10. (Mendoza Decl. ¶4.) These RFPs seek the following information: (1) “Any and all DOCUMENTS containing, referencing, or alluding to time records of YOUR employees, who worked for you from 4/15/2021 through the present” (RFP No. 5); (2) “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to handbooks, agreements, benefit descriptions, and memoranda, that REFER OR RELATE to the terms of and conditions, such as but not limited to meal breaks or rest breaks, of any of YOUR employees from four years ago to the present, including but not limited to any obligations, requirements, or duties those employees had while on duty working for YOU” (RFP No. 8); and (3) “Any and all DOCUMENTS constituting wage statements that YOU issued to any of YOUR non-exempt employees that worked for you from 4/15/2021 through the present” (RFP No. 10.)

              As stated, these discovery requests are pertaining to PAGA violations that seek information about employees from dates after Plaintiff’s termination. The Court previously granted judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff was terminated on December 9, 2019. (11/16/22 Minute Order.) Although Plaintiff contends that this information is to see if other employees were similarly aggrieved, Defendant’s demurrer challenges Plaintiff’s standing to bring PAGA claims for violations that occurred after her termination. Thus, this information will not assist Plaintiff in finding employees “similarly aggrieved,” as it will only inform Plaintiff of violations that occurred after her termination.

              The Court finds that Defendants have established good cause for the protective order requested. The issues presented in Defendant’s demurrer are potentially dispositive of the PAGA violations that occurred after Plaintiff’s termination. Furthermore, Defendant argues that Plaintiff improperly seeks wage statements, time records, and “all documents” reflecting terms and conditions of Equinox’s employees – without limiting to California employees who made demands under Labor Code sections 216 and 1199. (See Mendoza Decl., ¶¶4, 5, Exh. B, C.) Defendant argues that these requests are overbroad and not relevant as the requests should be limited to any employees that are “similarly situated.” Defendant argues that the employees have a legally protected privacy interest in their contact information, time and pay records, and documents concerning “terms of employment.” There is a privacy interest as to one's employment personnel files. (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 756; San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097.)

              Accordingly, the Court finds that there is good cause for the issuance of the protective order requested as it will protect Defendants from unwarranted undue burden or expense should their demurrer be successful. Additionally, it is worth noting that Defendants do not seek to be relieved of their duty to respond to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff. Instead, Defendants only seek to extend the time to substantively respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests until the case is at issue. Thus, the requested protective order is reasonable and narrowly tailored. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown that the delay will result in any prejudice.

Conclusion

              Defendant’s motion for a protective order is granted as to RFPs Nos. 5, 8, and 10.  

              If the Court ultimately overrules Defendant’s demurrer, Defendant is ordered to respond to the discovery requests at issue here within 30 days of the court order on the demurrer.  

Moving party to give notice.