2012-00128000-CU-WT
Joel Venegas Macias vs. Marquez Brothers Foods Inc
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Protective Order
Rodriguez, Edris W.I.

Plaintiff Joel Venegas Macias’ (“Macias”) motion for protective order is DENIED as
follows:

This case presents an employment dispute. Macias, the former employee, alleges that
Defendant Marquez Brothers Foods, Inc. (“Marquez”), his former employer, wrongfully
terminated him and engaged in disability discrimination and retaliation.
In the complaint, Macias alleges that he is disabled as the result of irregularities in his
urethra, i.e., urethral stricture and urethral diverticulum. According to Macias, these
conditions arose after a childhood accident. He alleges that, after undergoing surgery
to remove a bladder tumor in 2006, he has had additional medical problems. He
further alleges that, due to his conditions, he must periodically “adjust an ice bag that he uses to control the pain and inflammation, and a clamp that he uses to control
incontinence.” (Compl., ¶ 11.)

Marquez contends it terminated Macias based on complaints that he had fondled
himself while working and while in the presence of others. Macias dipsuteds this
version and contends that the termination was unlawful given his medical conditions.

The complaint contains a request for emotional-distress damages.

The current dispute centers on private information in Macias’ medical records. Macias
previously moved for and prevailed on a motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum
issued to his medical providers. (See Rodriguez Decl., ¶¶ 3-4 and Exh. B thereto.)
The court concluded that the subpoenas sought private information that was not
directly relevant. The court also concluded that Marquez could reissue subpoenas for
medical records as long as the subpoenas were narrowly tailored to the issues in the
case, i.e., urethral stricture, urethral diverticulum, incontinence, emotional distress,
Macias’ ability to perform the essential functions of his job, and Macias’ ability to
perform essential functions of other positions with Marquez. (Id.)

In May and June 2013, Marquez issued new subpoenas for Macias’ medical records.
The subpoenas set forth 14 categories of medical records that Marquez seeks. The
categories roughly track the language in the court’s order quashing the first
subpoenas. Nonetheless, Macias maintains that some of the requests are overbroad
and that compliance with them would violate his privacy rights.

In a commendable effort to avoid law and motion, counsel stipulated to a procedure by
which each would receive a copy of the subpoenaed records and would thereafter
focus on particular records the relevance and sensitivity of which remained disputed.

Through this procedure, the parties, their counsel and their experts viewed the
unredacted medical records. Counsel have reached agreement that some portions of
the records should be redacted, but they have not reached agreement on all such
issues. Thus, Macias’ counsel has submitted a list of medical conditions and
medications that he now asks the court to order redacted. The parties vigorously
dispute the relevance of the disputed conditions and medications.

As noted above, counsel’s attempt to resolve their dispute informally is commendable.

However, at this point, Marquez, its lawyers and its experts have viewed Macias’
records discussing the disputed medical conditions and medications. Given this
disclosure, albeit limited, it appears that the stipulated protective order on file, which
will limit dissemination of the disputed records, is sufficient to protect Macias’ privacy
interests and is more appropriate than a further protective order somehow directed at
the subpoenas. Indeed, the health care providers have already produced records in
response to the subpoenas.

The court notes that counsel may prevent unredacted medical records from becoming
accessible to the public by filing such records conditionally under seal pursuant to
CRC 2.550-2.551. To the extent Macias wishes to limit introduction of evidence of the
disputed conditions or medications at trial, he may pursue such limitations by way of
one or more motions in limine. Insofar as counsel have already agreed that certain
documents must be redacted during the course of this case, such agreement(s) shall
remain in effect.

To the extent Macias seeks an order determining that some of the records already produced are not responsive to the subpoenas, the request is DENIED.

Marquez’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

The court need not rule, and does not rule on Macias’ objections to evidence. The
court has only considered admissible evidence in making its ruling.

Macias’ request for an order sealing Exhibit A to the Rodriguez Declaration, which sets
forth the disputed medical conditions and medications, is UNOPPOSED and
GRANTED. Good cause to seal exists since the information contained in Exhibit A
contains private and sensitive information which warrants protection from public
disclosure, the right of public access to this information does not outweigh Macias’
interest in protecting the information, the value of the information being shielded will
likely be prejudiced if disclosure is not limited, the proposed limit on access is narrowly
tailored to only the private and sensitive information contained in Exhibit A, and there
are no less restrictive means to protect the value of the private and sensitive
information.

Conclusion

The motion for protective order is DENIED.

The clerk the court is directed to file Exhibit A to the Rodriguez Declaration,
which has been lodged conditionally under seal, and to change the security
clearance so that the exhibit is not available for public viewing.

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