Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV15517, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV15517 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: March 1, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: September 17, 2024
CASE: Stewart Marroquin v. CS Hotel LLC et al.
CASE NO.: 23STCV15517 
MOTION
TO QUASH THIRD PARTY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Stewart Marroquin in pro per.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants CS
Hotel LLC and Percy Cifuentes
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on July 5,
2023. Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed because of his physical
disability, and that Defendants refused to provide him with reasonable
accommodations for his condition before wrongly terminating him on the basis of
his disability.
Plaintiff moves to quash a
deposition subpoena for business records propounded to Santa Monica College
Admissions & Records., or, in the alternative, for a protective order
limiting the scope of the subpoena.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Quash Third Party Deposition Subpoena for Business Records is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the Court grants the motion to
quash as described above as to Plaintiff’s course syllabi and content,
transcripts, requested accommodations, attendance-related communications
relating to class attendance, or any other educational records, other than his
class schedules and attendance records, based solely on Plaintiff’s relevance
and overbreadth objections, and otherwise denies the motion.
//
//
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiff moves to quash a
deposition subpoena for business records propounded to Santa Monica College
Admissions & Records, or, in the alternative, for a protective order
limiting the scope of the subpoena.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section
1987.1 provides:
If
a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books,
documents, 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.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).) There is
no meet and confer requirement in section 1987.1. There is also no requirement
for a separate statement when no response has been provided to the request
for discovery. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(b)(1).) Furthermore, there is
no requirement for a showing of good cause for production of documents in
connection with a deposition subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.510(b); Terry
v. SLICO (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 352, 358.)
Analysis
Plaintiff
moves to quash a subpoena propounded to Santa Monica College Admissions &
Records. Defendants served the subpoena on December
7, 2023. (Declaration of Stewart Marroquin ISO Mot. Exh. 2.) Attachment 3 to
the Subpoena sets forth the documents sought from January 1, 2013 to the
present relating to Plaintiff as “[a]ll transcripts, class schedules including
with start/stop times for each class, attendance records, class withdrawal
records, syllibi or class content and communications relating to class
attendance pertaining to student STEWART MARROQUIN.” (Id. Exh. 2 Attach.
3.) Plaintiff contends that this category is overbroad, irrelevant, unduly
burdensome, invades Plaintiff’s privacy, seeks documents which are protected
from disclosure, and seeks documents which would not be admissible at trial.
At
the outset, as to Plaintiff’s contentions that certain evidence sought would
not be admissible at trial, such an argument is insufficient to demonstrate
that the materials sought are not discoverable. Evidence may be discoverable if
it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, even if it is,
itself, not admissible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)
In ruling on a privacy objection in the
context of discovery, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a
legally protected privacy interest. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3
Cal.5th 531, 552.) The party asserting a privacy right must also establish an
objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances. (Id.)
Further, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a threatened
intrusion that is serious. (Id.) The Court need not proceed to the
fourth step of balancing competing interests if all three of the above are not
satisfied. (Id. at 555.)
If the Court reaches the fourth step, the
Court must balance these competing considerations: The party seeking
information may raise whatever legitimate and important countervailing
interests disclosure may serve. (Id. at 552.) The party seeking
protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or
protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. (Id.)
Courts may not require the party seeking discovery to demonstrate a “compelling
need” simply because discovery of any facially private information is sought. (Id.
at 556-557.) When a privacy interest is asserted, the party seeking production
must show that the information sought is directly relevant to a cause of action
or a defense. (Harris v. Superior Court (Smets) (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th
661, 665, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859-62.)
With
respect to Plaintiff’s privacy objections, Plaintiff contends that he has a
legally protected interest in his personnel records, relying various cases
including those addressing discovery of third-party personnel records (see,
e.g., Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th
7, 10), but does not offer any authority that his educational records fall
under the same protections. Even so,
Plaintiff provides no basis for the conclusion that he has a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the specific documents at issue in this case.
Further, Plaintiff provides no basis to support a conclusion that the
threatened intrusion is serious. Plaintiff has therefore failed to carry his
burden to justify his privacy objection.
Finally, the Court turns to
Plaintiff’s overbreadth and relevance objections. Defendant contends that
its request for Plaintiff’s transcripts, class records, attendance records, and
course syllabi are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence pertaining
to Plaintiff’s claims for lost earnings and are necessary to independently
verify that Plaintiff has been attending Santa Monica College since 2015, as
attested in his responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories. In this respect,
Plaintiff’s class schedules and attendance records have some relevance to the
feasibility of concurrent employment, because Plaintiff’s educational time
commitments would limit the hours that he might otherwise spend earning wages.
Defendant’s argument that the course syllabi and content of the courses is somehow
relevant to “Plaintiff’s level of sophistication,” with respect to Defendant’s
defenses of Avoidable Consequences however, is much less persuasive. To prove the
defense of Avoidable Consequences, an employer must demonstrate it took
reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace harassment, that plaintiff
unreasonably failed to use those preventative and corrective measures, and that
reasonable use of those measures would have prevented some or all of the plaintiff’s
harm. (CACI 2526.) Defendant’s vague contention that Plaintiff’s “level
of sophistication, particularly in workplace interactions and understanding of
legal matters” is somehow relevant to this defense is not well-taken. Nor is
the Court persuaded that these records are indicative of Plaintiff’s job skills
and knowledge, as pertaining to the Failure to Mitigate Defense. In an
employment action seeking damages from wrongful termination under FEHA or in
violation of public policy, an employer advancing a failure to mitigate defense
must prove that employment substantially similar to the plaintiff’s former job
was available, that the plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to seek and
retain such employment, and what amount plaintiff could have earned from this
employment. Plaintiff’s efforts to better himself through additional study have
no bearing on any of these elements which are all pegged to the process of
replacing the job lost with a substantially similar one, not on getting a new
or different position based on additional education.
Defendant also claims that
Plaintiff’s educational records are likely to include information on requested
accommodations, which it claims are relevant to Plaintiff’s disability causes
of action. The Court disagrees. Accommodations requested from or provided by the
university for Plaintiff to facilitate his education are wholly unrelated to
the accommodations which Plaintiff sought or received pertaining to the
physical requirements of his position as a busser or drink runner. Defendant
also offers no arguments as to why Plaintiff’s transcripts or
attendance-related communications are themselves relevant, appropriately
narrow, or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The Court
therefore finds that Defendant is not entitled to compel production of those
records.
Based on the foregoing, the Court
finds that Defendants have demonstrated the relevance of their request for
Plaintiff’s class schedules and attendance records, and that these requests are
not overbroad. However, Defendants have not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s course syllabi and content, transcripts,
requested accommodations, attendance-related communications relating to class
attendance, or any other educational records should be produced.
The Court
therefore grants the motion to quash as to Plaintiff’s course syllabi and content,
transcripts, requested accommodations, attendance-related communications
relating to class attendance, or any other educational records, other than his
class schedules and attendance records, based solely on Plaintiff’s relevance
and overbreadth objections, and otherwise denies the motion.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Third Party
Deposition Subpoena for Business Records is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Specifically, the Court grants the motion to quash as described above as
to Plaintiff’s course syllabi and content, transcripts, requested
accommodations, attendance-related communications relating to class attendance,
or any other educational records, other than his class schedules and attendance
records, based solely on Plaintiff’s relevance and overbreadth objections, and
otherwise denies the motion.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 1, 2024 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.