18-CIV-04407 DESHUN YANG, ET AL. VS. BGSM, INC., ET AL.

DESHUN YANG BGSM, INC.
ANDREW STEINFELD SHANNON B. JONES

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA RE: PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, PERSONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT STEVEN KUOSHUN YU TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Defendant Steven Kuochan Yu (“Defendant”) to Quash Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ subpoena of Defendant’s prior employment records from CIG Corp. (“CIG”) implicates both Defendant’s privacy rights as well as third party privacy rights. (See Defendant’s Exh. A; see also Board of Trustees v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530 (disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557).)

Privacy rights are not absolute, but rather the court must balance whether such privacy rights are outweighed by the relevance of the information sought to the subject matter in the pending action. Discovery will not be ordered if the information sought is available from other sources or through less intrusive means. (Allen v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.)

Here, Plaintiffs fail to show that the information sought is directly relevant to a cause of action such that it outweighs Defendant’s and/or third parties’ privacy rights. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the information sought, such as Defendant’s dates of employments or the name of his supervisor(s) at CIG, cannot be sought from other less intrusive means such as depositions or interrogatories.

The subpoena served by Plaintiffs on CIG is hereby QUASHED.

Defendant is to serve CIG with a copy of the court’s order.

The court notes that Defendant failed to file a separate statement in compliance with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(a)(5). Although the court exercised its discretion to still rule on this motion without a separate statement, Defendant is cautioned to comply with this requirement in the future.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.