18-CIV-00027 MALAYSIA BROUGHTON VS. AMAZON.COM, LLC, ET AL.

MALAYSIA BROUGHTON AMAZON.COM, LLC
ERIKA JACOBSEN WHITE ELIZABETH M. TOLEDO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND FOR SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Malaysia Broughton’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas, and for Sanctions, is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The motion to quash the subpoenas in their entirety is DENIED. The motion to modify the subpoenas is GRANTED-IN-PART, as set forth below.

The date ranges are proper. The Court will not modify the date ranges of the documents sought, which appear reasonable. Plaintiff does not argue the subpoenas are overbroad as to time.

Plaintiff’s “less intrusive means” argument that Defendants can obtain all the same information from Plaintiff directly lacks merit. Plaintiff repeats the commonly asserted argument that rather than subpoenaing third parties, Defendant can obtain all the requested information from Plaintiff via written discovery/depositions. Defendants are not obligated to rely on Plaintiff to provide information potentially adverse to her case. They are entitled to verify disputed information via third party subpoenas.

Defendants’ argument that a Protective Order will adequately address Plaintiff’s privacy concerns lacks merit. Defendants contend a Protective Order, which is being negotiated, will adequately address Plaintiff’s privacy concerns. This argument is unsupported because no Protective Order has been provided to the Court. Further, regardless it may be drafted, a Protective Order may not adequately address privacy concerns, because the documents would nonetheless be produced to Defendants.

The subpoenas’ request for “all records” pertaining to Plaintiff is overbroad. Defendants have not sufficiently explained the direct relevance of “All records, including ESI, regarding Plaintiff Broughton’s employment …” This language appears overbroad. In each of the subpoenas at issue, the above-referenced introductory sentence shall be stricken, and changed to the following:

“The following documents (including documents in electronic format) relating to Plaintiff Broughton’s employment:”

Defendants’ request for “Payroll records, including salary, wages, commissions or other remuneration paid or held by the employer; W-2 forms.” As to Plaintiff’s subsequent employers (Federal Express, Home Care Assistants, T-Mobile, Home Depot, BevMo), the motion to quash the above language is DENIED because such documents are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claimed on-going loss of income. As to the prior employers (Foods Co. Grocery Store, Walmart, “In Home Support Services”/SF County Dept. of HR), the motion to quash as to these documents is GRANTED. Defendants have not demonstrated direct relevance of payroll records, etc. from prior employers.

“Medical records,” “sick leave,” and “worker’s compensation” documents. Plaintiff seeks damages for various types of “emotional distress” damages allegedly caused by Defendants. Plaintiff does not claim physical injury. Thus, as to all of the subpoenas at issue (both prior and subsequent employers), the request for medical records, “sick leave” and “worker’s compensation” records is proper, but shall be limited to records directly referencing emotional/mental distress/problems (such as stress, humiliation, depression, etc.). The subpoenas shall not encompass medical records, sick leave records, or worker’s comp. records that involve only physical issues/injuries. Defendants have not demonstrated that all medical records, sick leave, and worker’s comp. documents are directly relevant and essential to a fair resolution of the case.

“Personnel records, including her employment application, resume, performance evaluations, records of disciplinary actions; disciplinary claims.” As to the subsequent employers (Federal Express, Home Care Assistants, T-Mobile, Home Depot, BevMo), the motion to quash this category of documents is DENIED because they are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s mitigation efforts. As to the prior employers (Foods Co. Grocery Store, Walmart, “In Home Support Services”/SF County Dept. of HR), the motion to quash as to these documents is GRANTED. They do not appear directly relevant to the claims/defenses.

“time sheets and records of time-off the job and reasons thereto.” As to these documents, the motion to quash is DENIED as to the subsequent employers (Federal Express, Home Care Assistants, T-Mobile, Home Depot, BevMo), but GRANTED as to prior employers (Foods Co. Grocery Store, Walmart, “In Home Support Services”/SF County Dept. of HR).

Plaintiff’s request to quash, in its entirety, the subpoena SF County Dept. of Human Resources, is DENIED. Defendants state they subpoenaed this entity rather than Home Support Services because the address Plaintiff provided for Home Support Services is affiliated with SF County Department of HR. There is no privacy concern here because if Plaintiff was not employed with the entity, it will have no responsive records.

All requests for sanctions are DENIED. While a close question as to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants, the Court declines to issue sanctions on grounds the subpoenas, although in some respects overbroad, are in large part permissible given Plaintiff’s asserted claims. However, Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants simply ignored Plaintiff’s meet and confer requests appears to be accurate. Defendants’ contention that they didn’t see any point in meeting and conferring appears disingenuous. Defendants are reminded of the requirement to engage in a good faith meet and confer prior to engaging in motion practice.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, moving party is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312. The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.