Case Number: BC679919 Hearing Date: March 18, 2019 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records; Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, filed on 2/15/19 is GRANTED. The subpoena issued by Defendants to Staffmark for the “complete personnel file,” including contracts, application for employment, and performance records, among other things is ordered quashed.

Plaintiff concedes in Reply that the parties have resolved the issues with the subpoenas directed to Family Medical Group and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Reply, 2:1-3. The subpoena to Plaintiff’s employer, StaffMark, remains at issue.

The court can quash the subpoena to protect the Plaintiff from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 1987.1.

Plaintiff’s counsel establishes that Plaintiff’s counsel did attempt to meet and confer by leaving a voice mail message with defense counsel, Mr. Moon, requesting a meet and confer regarding the subpoenas pursuant to Plaintiff’s counsel’s 2/5/19 letter. Declaration of Kaleb Liao, ¶ 8.

The right to privacy is protected by the California Constitution. Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839. Where privacy rights are implicated, Defendants have to show that the records are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.

Defendants must show a compelling need for the discovery. There is an implicit waiver of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights encompassing discovery directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.

Defendants propose to reissue the subpoena issued to Staffmark for Plaintiff’s employment and personnel records limited to two years before the incident through the present, to exclude income information. Declaration of Leah Reeves, ¶ 4.

Employment and personnel records are protected from disclosure. Board of Trustees v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, (1981) 119 Cal. App. 3d 516, 526.

Personnel records are not subject to disclosure since, “California courts have generally concluded that the public interest in preserving confidential information outweighs the interest of a private litigant in obtaining the confidential information.” Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7, 10.

In weighing the parties’ interests for the information and against its disclosure, “[e]ven when the balance does weigh in favor of disclosure, the scope of disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed. (Board of Trustees, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at p. 526.)” Harding at 10.

Defendants have not persuasively shown how the rest of Plaintiff’s employment/ personnel records are directly relevant to any issue raised in Plaintiff’s complaint, given that Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff is not making a lost earnings claim. Opposition, 3:12-13.

Defendants argue that the records are relevant to show what limitations “if any, Plaintiff endured as a result of the incident, or whether she missed any time from work.” Opposition, 3:13-15. This is insufficient to show “direct relevance.” Speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant is not sufficient to meet Defendants’ burden. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1017.

The Court awards Plaintiff $1,461.65 for fees and costs incurred in making the motion. Defendants have not shown substantial justification for their conduct. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 1987.2.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.