Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV22159, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22159    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 11, 2020, plaintiffs Valentin Velasco Diaz (“Plaintiff”), Sandra Velasco, and Valeria Velasco filed this action against defendant Agustin Sandoval Ruvalcaba and J.K. Freight Carrier Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on July 9, 2018. 

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash Defendants’ subpoena for his employment records from Il Segreto Ristorante Belair, a restaurant he used to work for.  Plaintiff contends that his employment records are not relevant as he is not claiming a loss of income or earning capacity as part of his damages.

A deposition subpoena may request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony, as well as the production of business records.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)  The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “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 orders 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, subd. (a).)  “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (a).)

“‘[F]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement’ and ‘[a]dmissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.’  These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery . . . and (contrary to popular belief) fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.”  (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653, citations omitted.)  The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery.  (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.)  There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.) 

Plaintiff argues that nothing in his personnel file is relevant to this case, while Defendants contend these documents are needed to verify Plaintiff’s attendance at work and whether Plaintiff requested physical accommodations for his pre-existing spinal disc disease. 

Personnel documents and information communicated to an employer in confidence are covered by the employee’s constitutional right of privacy.  (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal. App. 3d 516, 524-26; see also Harding Lawson Assocs. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 7, 10 [holding that personnel files are protected by the right of privacy unless the requesting party shows a compelling need for the particular documents

and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through depositions or from nonconfidential sources].) 

Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he never missed a day of work at his current job for another restaurant, Toscanova, and did not inform his current employer of any physical limitations due to the incident.  Further, Defendants have already had Plaintiff examined by their expert orthopedist on July 26, 2022.  Absent any evidence that Defendants have a compelling need for Plaintiff’s employment records from a former employer, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is GRANTED. 

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’s request for sanctions is DENIED because the motion was not opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification, and the subpoena was not oppressive. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.