2012-00131531-CU-WT

Cindy Powell vs. Sierra View Eldercare Inc

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Protective Order

Filed By: Ochrach, Jeffrey H.

This matter was originally set for hearing on 4/4/2014 but was continued to 4/11/2014
to permit the parties to meet-and-confer and to prepare an appropriate protective
order. On 4/10/14, Plaintiff lodged slightly differing protective orders, one that Plaintiff
proposes, and the other that Defendant proposes. Defendant proposes an attorneys’-
eyes-only protective order, whereas Plaintiff proposes a protective order by which she
and other appropriate witnesses may view the documents. Plaintiff’s proposed order,
however, would require her and others to execute declarations by which they agree to
maintain the confidentiality of the documents and their contents. Because the court
had not had an opportunity to consider the respective proposed protective orders, the
hearing was continued to today’s date.

The court is inclined to adopt Plaintiff’s proposed protective order but will entertain oral
argument if the parties desire. It appears that Plaintiff and perhaps other witnesses
may be needed to review the subject documents during the litigation to explain their
significance. The declarations that Plaintiff’s protective order contemplates preserve
the confidentiality of the documents. Further, the court does not discern any good
cause to prevent Plaintiff and other appropriate witnesses from viewing the documents
subject to the confidentiality requirements proposed.

The court’s original tentative ruling, which was affirmed on 4/4/2014, is set forth below.

The motion of third party Angels Sunrise Villa 1 (“Angels 1”) for an order quashing a
subpoena issued to third party US Bank for Angel 1’s bank records is DENIED.

This case involves an employment dispute. Plaintiff Cindy Powell (“Powell”) alleges in
the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) that Defendants Sierra View Eldercare,
Inc. d/b/a Elder Creek Residential Care, Mandeep Cheema, Chandan Cheema and
Angels Sunrise Villa-Sacramento, LLC (“Angels Sacramento”) and Alpesh Kumar
(“Kumar”) (collectively “Defendants”) were her joint employers. She also alleges that
Defendants are each others’ alter egos. As noted above, Angels 1 is not a party to the
case, and there are no allegations in the FAC vis-à-vis Angels 1.

In February 2014, Powell issued a subpoena for Angel 1’s bank records between July
1, 2010 and May 30, 2011. Powell argues that she is entitled to the records because
they are relevant to her allegations that Defendants were her joint employers. She also
argues that the records are relevant to her allegations that Kumar is a joint employer
and the other defendants’ alter ego.

Powell’s arguments stem from her assertion that, while Defendants allegedly
employed her, she received earnings in the form of a check drawn from the Angel’s 1
account at issue. (See Asbill Decl., Exh. F.) Kumar is the signatory on the account. (
Id.) Powell further notes that, based on her research, Angels 1 is not registered with
the California Secretary of State and does not operate in Placer County, where Powell
allegedly worked for Defendants. Thus, she reasons that Angels 1 is a conduit for
Kumar. Powell thus argues that she needs limited access to the Angels 1 account to
show, among other things, that Kumar was her joint employer.

Furthermore, Powell argues that the records sought will show deposits from checks
issued by Angels Sacramento. Such deposits, she reasons, will demonstrate that
Kumar is Angels Sacramento’s alter ego.

Powell has demonstrated that the records sought are directly relevant to her claims
and that she has a compelling need for the records. Moreover, the court finds that the
subpoena is narrowly tailored to Powell’s compelling needs. Thus, assuming the
records are protected by rights of privacy, Powell has made showing that overcomes
such rights.

The court notes that US Bank evidently produced all the subpoenaed records before
the court ruled on the instant motion. The parties dispute whether Powell’s counsel
was required to return the records until the court ruled. Because the court concludes
that Powell is entitled to the records, this dispute is moot.

The court notes that Powell’s counsel offered to enter into a stipulated protective order
to limit dissemination of the records at issue. The court thus directs the parties to craft
a stipulated protective order for the court’s signature. The stipulated order shall not
cover, however, checks issued to Powell. The stipulated order shall incorporate the
provisions of CRC 2.550-2.551 governing the sealing of records filed with the court.
Powell’s counsel shall submit the stipulated order to the court no later than April 14,
2014.

The court further notes that Powell has filed copies of checks containing unredacted
financial account numbers. Filing these unredacted account numbers violates CRC
1.20(b). Pursuant to CRC 2.550-2.551, Powell’s counsel shall promptly file a motion or
application to seal the Asbill Declaration (including all exhibits), which contains the
unredacted account numbers. At the time counsel files the motion or application to
seal, counsel shall lodge an appropriately redacted but otherwise identical version of
the Asbill Declaration (including all exhibits). The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the security clearance on the Asbill
Declaration filed 03/21/14 so that it is not available for public viewing.

The parties’ requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Powell’s request for judicial notice of the FAC is GRANTED.

Defense counsel is advised that the Sacramento County Superior Court’s Local Rules
were revised and renumbered as of 01/01/13. When giving notice of the court’s
tentative ruling system, counsel should cite Local Rule 1.06, not former Local Rule
3.04.

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