2011-00115333-CU-OE

Boyce Jeffries vs. City of Galt

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas

Filed By: Kilduff, Carolee G.

Defendant’ City of Galt’s Motion to Compel Compliance with subpoenas issued to
plaintiff’s subsequent employers is granted only as to the payroll records, W-2s,
benefits and cost of benefits information. The motion to compel is otherwise denied.

Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated from the City of Galt after 27 years
as the Parks and Recreation Director making $120,000 a year. The subpoenas seek
all employment records from subsequent employers IKEA and Rite Aid, including
applications, evaluations, W2s, benefit information including costs to plaintiff, any
complaints plaintiff has filed or had filed against him, disciplinary action, performance
memos, commendations, promotion opportunities, and payroll records. Plaintiff
obtained menial low paying jobs at IKEA and Rite Aid to tide him over after he was
terminated.

Defendant contends they need the information to verify plaintiffs’ wage loss claim as
well as to see if any other factors in his later employment contributed the emotional
distress that he alleges was caused by defendant.

Plaintiff’s employment records are subject to the right of privacy. San Diego Trolley v
Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097. For example, a plaintiff in a sexual
harassment lawsuit did not waive the right of privacy on her sexual history or practices:
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 Superior 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
Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665. Discovery may be compelled only upon
a showing of a compelling public interest. Id. at 664.

Defendant has not established direct relevance of the entire personnel file. However,
plaintiff has agreed to produce the payroll records, W-2s, benefits and cost of benefits
information. The Court agrees that these are the only directly relevant records and
therefore is granting the motion by limiting the subpoenas as agreed by plaintiff.

Defendant is not entitled to a fishing expedition to discover the “genesis” of plaintiff’s
continuing emotional distress.

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