Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 19STCV33735, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV33735    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiff Smauel Stringer.

TENTATIVE

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

As to the four employment subpoenas, the motion is denied.

As to the four educational subpoenas, the subpoenas are modified.  With these modifications made, the motion to quash the four educational subpoenas, as modified, is denied.

BACKGROUND 

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff Samuel Stringer (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Center Studios, and Does 1 through 100 for a cause of action under Government Code § 835 against City, and Negligence and Premises Liability against Los Angeles Center Studios, arising from a trip and fall on April 1, 2019. City answered on November 14, 2019.  Los Angeles Center Studios was dismissed on August 8, 2023.

On or about December 21, 2023, City issued 35 subpoenas to various entities (medical providers, educational institutions, and employers) seeking records regarding (among other things) Plaintiff’s medical treatment, billing, finances, employment, and education.  (Moreno Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states that he received no response from an email and a voice mail message attempting to meet and confer.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.)

On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash the subpoenas issued to Gannett Company, CNN, KTLA, Time-Warner, Specs Howard School of Media, Lansing Community College, Rochester University, and Michigan State University.

City filed its opposition on February 2, 2024. Plaintiff filed the reply brief February 9, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision(a), states:  

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, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.  

The California Constitution recognizes that all people have “inalienable rights,” including “pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”  (Cal. Const., art. 1, § 1.)

For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.  (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)  Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.) 

DISCUSSION 

As a threshold matter, the Court questions why Plaintiff attached copies of 35 subpoenas in a motion to quash only 8 subpoenas.  This unnecessary paperwork increased the burden on the Court in ruling on this motion, as the Court was required to examine pages and pages of irrelevant attachments to find the 8 subpoenas that are at issue. 

Turning to the merits, City seeks to obtain, by subpoena, certain of Plaintiff’s employment and academic records.  (Moreno Decl., Exh. 1.)  Plaintiff argues that these subpoenas are overly broad and violate his right to privacy.

The accident in this matter occurred in April 2019.  Plaintiff attributes to the accident “traumatic brain injury, depression, anxiety, memory issues,” and injuries to his “upper and lower extremities.”  (Id., ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff seeks to recover for (among other things) lost earning and lost earning capacity.

California’s Constitutional right to privacy protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive information regarding one’s personal life.¿ (Britt v. Superior Court (1978)20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)¿¿This includes such things as medical records, employment records, and financial information.¿¿(John B. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198 (medical records); Valley Bank of Nevada v. Super. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 (financial records); l Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Super. Ct. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345 (employment records); Board of Trustees v. Super. Ct. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526 (employment records).)

In Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, and other cases, the California Supreme Court has established “a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.) First, a 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.” (Id., citing Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 35-37.) In response, the party seeking the information may raise “whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves,” and “the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Id., citing Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 37-40.) The court must then “balance these competing considerations.” (Ibid.) The party seeking the information need not, however, establish a “compelling interest” unless the disclosure would be “an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy.” (Id. at p. 556.)

Under the Williams and Hill framework, Plaintiff here must first establish a legally protected privacy interest and a reasonable expectation of privacy. Plaintiff has done so.  The educational and employment records covered by the subpoenas are protected by the right to privacy, and Plaintiff has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in these records.  

Next, the subpoenas appear on their face to be a serious intrusion into Plaintiff’s right to privacy. The subpoenas seek information regarding matters that are private, personal, and sensitive.

At this point, under Williams and Hill, City must identify the “legitimate and important countervailing interests” that disclosure would serve. For example, City may attempt to show that the discovery sought is “directly relevant” to the claims or defenses in dispute and is “essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Lantz v. Super. Ct. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854.)

City has made this showing, at least in part.  Plaintiff claims that the accident caused, among other things, brain injuries that have caused him to lose earnings and that have had a negative effect on his earning capacity.  The employment records sought, and at least some of the educational records sought, are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and City has a legitimate interest in obtaining those records.  But City has not made that showing as to other aspects of Plaintiff’s educational records, such as school discipline, school medical records, staff comments, attendance records, and admission records.

Plaintiff has not identified any feasible alternatives that would serve the same interests and diminish the loss of privacy.  The Court notes that, contrary to the statements in the moving papers, the subpoenas are quite limited as to time – three of the four employment subpoenas seek records from May 23, 2023 to the present, the fourth seeks records from October 5, 2021 to the present, and the educational subpoenas seek records from October 5, 2022 to the present.  This is not a case in which City is seeking records that go back for decades.

Finally, under the framework set out in Hill and reaffirmed in Williams, the Court must balance the “competing considerations” of the serious intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy and City’s legitimate need for the information.  This balancing of competing considerations is necessarily a difficult and delicate task, and it is particularly challenging here as the Court does not know what the subpoenaed records will reveal. Nonetheless, the Court must and will conduct the balancing based on the information before it in the record.

On balance, and after considering all of the evidence in the record and the arguments of both sides, the Court finds that City’s legitimate interest in obtaining the subpoenaed employment records outweighs Plaintiff’s substantial privacy interest.  As to the educational records, the Court finds that in connection with the balancing of interests, the subpoenas should be limited to “report cards” and “transcripts”; as so limited, City’s legitimate interest in obtaining the subpoenaed educational records outweighs Plaintiff’s substantial privacy interest.

Accordingly, the request to quash the employment records is denied.

As to the educational records, the Court modifies and limits the subpoenas.  With these modifications, the Court denies the motion to quash.

Neither side seeks sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES the motion to quash the subpoenas directed to Gannett Company, CNN, KTLA, and Time-Warner.

The Court MODIFIES the subpoenas directed to Specs Howard School of Media, Lansing Community College, Rochester University, and Michigan State University as follows: each subpoena is limited to “report cards” and “transcripts.”  With these modifications made, the Court otherwise DENIES the motion to quash these subpoenas.

City is ordered to give notice.