Case Number: BC515375    Hearing Date: August 13, 2014    Dept: 46

Case Number: BC515375
IRINA SIDLETCHI VS DAVIDOVICH & ASSOCIATES INC ET AL
Filing Date: 07/17/2013
Case Type: Other Employment Complaint (General Jurisdiction)

***

This tentative ruling is posted at 8:30 a.m. on 8-12-2014 and the matter is set for hearing on 8:13-2014 at 8:30 a.m.

If there are no parties other than Plaintiff/Petitioner, then Plaintiff/Petitioner may submit to the tentative without appearance by telephonic notification to the clerk of Dept. 46 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on a date prior to the hearing or morning prior to the hearing by calling (213) 974-5665, and the court will issue the tentative ruling as the final ruling. If the other parties have appeared in the action, then the parties must first confer and all agree that the tentative ruling will be the final ruling on the matter. If the parties to the matter before the court all agree, a representative of the parties may call the clerk and submit without an appearance, and the court will issue the tentative ruling as the final ruling. If an order is required, it should be lodged directly in Dept. 46 with a copy to adverse/other parties, if any.

***

08/13/2014 at 08:32 am in department 46 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION – COMPEL RESPONSES

TENTATIVE RULING: Although the Salas v. Sierra Chemical (2014) 59 Cal.4th 407 has been decided and it authorizes discovery of the employee’s eligibility to work in the U.S. in support of the after-acquired evidence defense and while plaintiff has failed to distinguish Salas from this case (because Plaintiff seeks lost pay damages and has potential ineligibility to work in the U.S.) or dispute the declaration of Daisy Kramer, the motion must be continued for further briefing relative to the interplay between federal immigration law, particularly 8 CFR 208.6, and the right of the employer to seek information is support of its defense.

The declaration of Mr. Fernandez indicates that Plaintiff is Category C08 which means that she has a pending application for asylum in the USA. 8 CFR 208.6(a) indicates that information contained in the asylum petition is confidential and none of the exceptions in the code are apparent to the court. An order compelling response to discovery on this issue will apparently require violation of 8 CFR 208.6. Since Salas did not involve a person with an asylum petition pending or 8 CFR 208.6, and because it indicates that federal immigration law preempts any state law, the court needs further briefing of this issue in light of the Salas decision.

The court is aware of the impending trial date of 11/12/2014. Therefore the matter is continued to 09/19/2014. Both parties shall file and serve supplemental briefs by 09/03/2014 and file and serve reply briefs by 09/12/2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Frederick C. Shaller, Judge