2018-00232687-CU-PO

Fazila Jahangiri vs. Marriott International, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena and Production of Documents

Filed By: Foroozandeh, Majid

Plaintiff Fazila Jahangiri’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to quash the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Bank of the West is GRANTED.

This action arises from a slip and fall accident at defendant HV-Houston Development, Inc. dba Marriott Sacramento Rancho Cordova’s (“Defendant”) property on November 3, 2017. Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 8, 2018, alleging claims for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff seeks damages including medical expenses, general damages, wage loss, and loss of earning capacity.

On September 26, 2018, Defendant served Bank of America, Plaintiff’s current employer, with a subpoena to produce the following:

“Any and all employment records and human resource records of Plaintiff Fazila Jahangiri, (DOB: 04/07/1959, SSN: unknown), including but not limited to the following: Any and all employment applications, employment manuals, handbooks and guidelines, payroll and/or tax records reflecting gross and net animal income, including forms W-2, W-4, and 1098; payroll history; payroll statements; benefits statements; time cards; any overtime hours records; any doctor’s notes or medical records provided by Plaintiff Fazila Jahangiri, during the course of her employment; quarterly or yearly performance reviews, reprimands, and complaints of Plaintiff Fazila Jahangiri, during the course of her employment; any disability benefits provided or denied to Plaintiff Fazila Jahangiri, during the course of her employment; company policy regarding medical leave; all documents regarding work-related injuries and complaints relating to work injuries made by Plaintiff Fazila Jahangiri, during the course of her employment; incident reports, claims documents and worker’s compensation claims record and files relating to Plaintiff Fazila Jahangiri, during the course of her employment; and/or other written statements or items pertaining to the employment of Plaintiff Fazila Jahangiri.

*The foregoing requests also include any related billing records.*”

Without engaging in any meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff filed this instant motion to quash. When Defendant received the motion, it reached out to Plaintiff to meet and confer. Defendant proposed new limited language for the subpoena and also proposed a protective order. Specifically, Defendant proposed to remove requests for employment manuals, applications, and to alter the language regarding handbooks and guidelines. Otherwise, the language largely remained the same. Plaintiff agreed only to limit the language to include payroll records for 2017 and 2018, attendance records for 2017 and 2018, and doctor notes related to time off for any injuries. The parties were not able to resolve their dispute.

Plaintiff now moves to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the documents subpoenaed are overbroad and invade Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

Defendant opposes on the grounds that California has a liberal scope of discovery and the documents sought could provide insight as to why Plaintiff has not returned to

work, her earnings history, her projected future earnings, and “various other aspects of her claimed wage loss and loss of earning capacity damages.” Defendant reasons Plaintiff cannot assert wage loss damages and then prohibit Defendant from obtaining information that could assist in defending against the same. Defendant also contends Plaintiff has placed her employment history and future at issue by claiming wage loss and loss of earning capacity and, therefore, balancing Plaintiff’s right to privacy against the legitimate probative value of discovery weights in favor of permitting the discovery.

Here, Defendant seeks Plaintiff’s personnel records and employment history. “It is clear…personnel records and employment history are within the [privacy] protection provided by the state and federal Constitutions.” (San Diego Trolley, Inc . v. Super. Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097.) Matters that would otherwise be protected by the constitutional right of privacy are discoverable only if directly relevant to plaintiff’s claims and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Vinson v Super. Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 841-842.) When the right to discovery conflicts with a privilege right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery [Citations].” (Harris v Super. Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.)

“Although admissibility is not a prerequisite to discoverability, a heightened standard of discovery may be justified when dealing with information which, though not privileged, is sensitive or confidential.” (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1492.) “The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.” (Davis v. Super. Ct. (1992) 7 CaI.App.4th 1008, 1017 [emphasis added].) “Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice.” (Id.) “Even when the balance does weigh in favor of disclosure, the scope of disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed.” (Id.) Direct relevance is required in such matters, apparently to prevent a searching for only tangentially pertinent sensitive information. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 860-861 & fn. 4; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial (1987) § 8:320, p. 8C-50.)

Further, personnel records are protected from discovery unless the litigant can show a compelling need for the particular documents and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through depositions or from non-confidential sources. (Harding Lawson v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7, 10.) The court must weigh the claimed right of privacy against the public interest in obtaining just results in litigation. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup. Ct (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 657. The courts have held that “in order to show a compelling need, a litigant must demonstrate not only the information is material to the disposition of the litigants rights, but also that there is no less intrusive means of obtaining the needed information.

The Court agrees that some of the requested records may be relevant, or even directly relevant, to Plaintiff’s claims for wage loss and loss of earning capacity, but the Court finds that the subpoena as framed is overbroad and seeks more information than is directly relevant to the issues in this lawsuit. The Court is not persuaded that Defendant has demonstrated all the records are directly relevant. And it must be noted that plaintiff acknowledges defendant’s rights to obtain payroll records for 2017 and 2018, attendance records for 2017 and 2018, and doctor notes related to time off for any injuries. But addressing the language of the subpoena at issue, at most, Defendant states the records “could provide insight into why Plaintiff has not returned to work, her earnings history, her projected future earnings and various other aspects of her claimed wage loss and loss of earning capacity damages.” (Oppo. at

4:25-27 (emphasis added).) This speculation is insufficient when balanced against Plaintiff’s right to privacy in her personnel and employment records. Further, Defendant has not established that it cannot obtain the information through depositions or from non-confidential sources. Defendant notes it served written discovery on Plaintiff and implies that her responses did not provide sufficient information. However, there is no showing as to why the information sought through this subpoena cannot be obtained through a deposition or non-confidential source and thus, that Defendant has a compelling need for the documents. Given the constitutional right to privacy, the Court will not allow the broad discovery into the entirety of Plaintiff’s personnel record with Bank of America.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED. Of course, a more narrowly tailored subpoena may be sought by Defendant.

Defendant’s request for an in camera review of the documents is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff is DENIED.

To the extent the parties encounter any more issues with respect to the scope of permissible discovery, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel shall meet-and-confer in good faith consistent with the language found in Townsend v. Superior Court before filing a motion to quash (or compel).

Plaintiff has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 53 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Plaintiff shall notify Defendant immediately.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event Defendant appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.