Case Number: EC067182 Hearing Date: June 01, 2018 Dept: A

Ramirez v Freeway Auto, Inc.

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RECORDS

Calendar: 10

Case No: EC067182

Hearing Date: 6/1/18

Action Filed: 10/3/17

Trial: 3/19/19

MP: Plaintiff Eduardo Ramirez

RP: Defendant Freeway Auto, Inc.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Eduardo Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was an employee of Defendant Freeway Auto, Inc. (“Defendant”). He alleges that he started working for Defendant on March 10, 2014, providing battery services for vehicles. He alleges he was wrongfully terminated on December 24, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that he began suffering back pain on September 30, 2015 and had taken time off work, and informed Defendant that he could not sit too long or be on the flatbeds, but that his statements went ignored. He alleges that “Nadia”, an adult female and supervisor with supervisory authority over Plaintiff, discriminated, harassed, and/or retaliated against him.

The complaint, filed October 3, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) retaliation; (2) disability discrimination; (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (4) IIED; (5) failure to prevent discrimination; (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (7) failure to engage in an interactive process; and (8) failure to pay final wages.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena of Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation records from State Compensation Insurance Fund (“SCIF”).

DISCUSSION:

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, the court may, upon motion reasonably made, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. (CCP §1987.1(a).)

Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena for production of business records served on SCIF, which seeks: ““Please provide any and al [sic] worker’s compensation claim records regarding EDUARDO RAMIREZ; Claim Number: 06166716; Date of Injury: 9/30/2015; Employer: Freeway Auto, Inc.” (See Khoury Decl., Ex. A.)

The parties appear to have adequately met and conferred prior to him bringing this motion as the parties were able to resolve the other two subpoenas for production of business records served on Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation attorney (Rawa Law Group APC) and his medical group (Peak Performance Chiropractic). Thus, the only subpoena at issue is with regard to SCIF for the worker’s compensation records.

Plaintiff argues that this is a disability discrimination action and not a worker’s compensation action; thus, he argues that such information is irrelevant and violates his right of privacy in his medical information. He agrees that Defendant should have some documents relating to restrictions and notes provided to his employer while he was employed relating to back pain, but disagrees that Defendant should have access to his worker’s compensation file, which may potentially document diseases from years before that are too attenuated to have any relevance to this action nor can be used to measure damages.

However, the subpoena request issued on SCIF is narrowly tailored to a specific claim number, for a specific date of injury, with regard to employer/Defendant. Defendant argues that it is seeking SCIF records to obtain information regarding whether Plaintiff did in fact have a disability, if Defendant was on notice of the disability, and what accommodations Plaintiff required based on his disability. This information is relevant as Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that he had a disability that Defendant failed to accommodate. (See Compl., ¶¶27-31.)

Further, Defendant argues in opposition that while Plaintiff claims he was injured on September 30, 2015, Defendant did not have notice of the work injury and Plaintiff only filed a worker’s compensation claim after he was terminated, which is when Defendant first heard of any injury. Thus, Defendant seeks to determine whether Plaintiff was truly injured (see Labor Code, §3208 [injury refers to any injury/disease arising out of the employment]) and “disabled” (see Gov’t Code, §12926 [physical disability includes disability to the body system, limits life activities, etc.]) while or during the time he was employed by Defendant, and if Defendant had notice in time to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability. The SCIF documents appear to be relevant and appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The deposition subpoena should be complied with.

To accommodate Plaintiff further, Defendant offers to narrow the subpoena to: “Any and all documents related to the injury which allegedly occurred on September 30, 2015 including treatment records related to the alleged injury, notifications to employer, summary of facts related to how the injury occurred, and any documents related to limitations required as a result of the alleged injury.” The Court finds this construction unnecessary since the initial subpoena is narrowly tailored to a specific claim number, date, claimant, and employer.

RULING:

Deny Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena issued on SCIF.