Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV03179, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03179    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 39

Gillian Maduako v. Martin Luther King, Jr.-Los Angeles Healthcare Corporation

Case No. 21STCV03179

Motion to Quash

            Plaintiff Gillian Maduako (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Martin Luther King, Jr.-Los Angeles Healthcare Corporation (“Defendant”) under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Now, Plaintiff moves to quash a subpoena served upon two of her subsequent employers seeking employment records from January 1, 2021, to the present. 

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the Court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  In ruling on a motion to quash, “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).)

Plaintiff has a right to privacy in her employment history.  (Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426-1427.)  Accordingly, the Court cannot order disclosure of Plaintiff’s employment records unless the records are directly relevant to this litigation.  (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.) 

            Defendant articulates multiple reasons why these records are relevant to this action.  First, Defendant maintains that it did not discriminate or retaliate against Plaintiff but instead placed her on a paid investigatory suspension after receiving “dozens of complaints . . . regarding her intimidating, condescending, and unapproachable demeanor which caused employees to suffer anxiety and feat when working with her.”  Defendant is entitled to attempt to corroborate these work performance issues by reviewing Plaintiff’s subsequent employment records.  Second, Defendant is entitled to discovery on Plaintiff’s qualifications, earning history, and earning potential for purposes of damages.  Third, Defendant states that Plaintiff’s discovery responses are not consistent with her deposition testimony concerning her employment, and Defendant is entitled to conduct discovery on this issue.  Finally, Defendant is entitled to identify percipient witnesses who can testify about these issues.  The Court finds that the subpoenas are reasonably drafted to obtain these documents.   

            Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,260.  The Court finds that there was no substantial justification for this motion and that sanctions are appropriate.  The Court finds that this amount is fair and reasonable in order to compensate Defendant for the expense in litigating this motion.  Therefore, the Court grants the request.

            The Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied.

            2.         Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, shall pay sanctions in the amount of $2,260 within thirty (30) days. 

            3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.