Glanz v. Oak Grove Union School District

II. Subpoena

The subject subpoena was issued on January 31, 2026, to Cor-Shoreline. (Karpilow decl., Exhibit 1.) It seeks: “All employment records including personnel files, records of payments, salary and benefits, any and [sic] performance evaluation, or correspondence or letters in references [sic] to her employment from: March 8, 2023 to present.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that the requested records are objectionable as exceeding the scope of permissible discovery because they are neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

A. Waiver

Defendants argue that Plaintiff waived her right to object to the subpoena because she agreed to produce the records if Defendants withdrew the subpoena, which they did. They argue that Plaintiff did not subsequently produce all responsive records. Defendants state that Plaintiff only produced two documents: Cor-Shoreline's offer of employment and Cor-Shoreline's educational internet account terms and conditions. Defendants did not file a motion to compel compliance with the agreement to produce documents. Rather, they re-served the subpoena on Cor- Shoreline on January 31, 2026. Defendants provide no legal authority to support their waiver argument. Therefore, they have failed to meet their burden on this issue.

B. Subsequent meet and confer efforts

Subsequent to the filing of this motion, the parties continued meet and confer efforts. In addition, Tad Shapiro, Esq. was appointed by the Court to serve as the volunteer discovery referee on April 28, 2026. He has filed a report outlining his review of the motion documents and his recommendation. Per Mr. Shapiro’s report, Plaintiff has agreed to waive economic damages. Therefore, the request pertaining to any lost wages or benefits is moot.

Mr. Shapiro defines the remaining issue as whether Defendants may obtain records from Cor-Shoreline to inquire into whether Plaintiff has experienced difficulties in her employment with Cor-Shoreline similar to those she alleges she experienced with Oak Grove Unified School District. Plaintiff’s motion does not address this specific issue. Rather, Plaintiff merely argues generally that the request is not relevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that the records are protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

C. Privacy Rights in Discovery

One's constitutional right of privacy is not absolute, and, upon a showing of some compelling public interest, the right of privacy must give way. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 664.) One compelling public interest is the ascertainment of truth and the just resolution of legal claims. (Ibid.) When the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery. (Ibid.) The proponent of discovery of constitutionally protected material has the burden of making a threshold showing that the evidence sought is “directly relevant” to the claim or defense. (Ibid.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that the requested documents are directly relevant to this action because, if Plaintiff never raised the confidentiality issues at Cor-Shoreline that she raised at Oak Grove, it would suggest that those were either not legitimately held beliefs or that she disregarded those beliefs after her experience at Oak Grove. The allegations in the complaint appear specific to events that occurred at Oak Grove Unified School District. If the same events did not occur at Cor-Shoreline, it is not clear Plaintiff’s personnel records with Cor-Shoreline would reflect her concern about the confidentiality of students’ counseling records.

However, if any such records exist, they are directly relevant to the claims herein. Mr. Shapiro interprets relevant records to mean those regarding issues relating to the confidentiality of counseling records and any disciplinary records. In review of the issued raised within this motion the Court concurs.

The Court has received the Discovery Facilitator’s recommendation that it grant the motion to quash the subpoena for Plaintiff’s employment records except for records relating to any dispute or discipline regarding the confidentiality of counseling records. It is further recommended that any such documents be produced to the Discovery Facilitator for his review to determine if they are discoverable. The Court now adopts the Discovery Facilitator’s recommendations.

D. Discovery Facilitator Fees

The Discovery Facilitator has also advised that fees for his services are now outstanding. As the Parties are aware, the Discovery Facilitator Program and its volunteers offer two (2) free hours of service free of charge. From then onward, the parties may agree to continue with the discovery facilitator provided that agreement is reached between and among the parties and the discovery facilitator as to compensation of the discovery facilitator. (Local Rule 4.14 (F)).

The Facilitator’s Report details $3,900.00 in fees ($650/hr. x 6 hours), sans the free hours, have been incurred to the handling of this matter. The Court assumes the hourly rate was discussed with the Parties prior to the incurrent of such time and fees. Consequently, the Court orders payment of these fees be split equally between the Parties.

III. Conclusion and Order

The motion is GRANTED EXCEPT as to records relating to any dispute or discipline regarding the confidentiality of counseling records. As to these, Cor-Shoreline is directed to produce these to Mr. Shapiro for his review to determine whether any are discoverable. Sanctions are denied. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

2. 24CV01984, 458 Seb Ave LLC. v. Anderson

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

I.

Introduction

Plaintiff 458 SEB AVE LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant Eric Gustav Anderson (“Defendant Anderson”) from acting or representing himself to third parties as Plaintiff’s manager, Tax Matters Partner, Winding-Up Partner, or owner, in any capacity, as well as explicitly precluding Defendant Anderson from (i) transferring any funds or real property owned by Plaintiff; (ii) filing any tax related documentation to the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”); and (iii) submitting documentation to the California Secretary of State.

The motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 525 through 527, as well as California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1150 and on the grounds that Andreas Pfanner (“Pfanner”), and not Defendant Anderson, is Plaintiff’s sole manager and one hundred percent (100%) owner. Despite Plaintiff's notarized corporate documents to this effect, Plaintiff argues Defendant Anderson has refused and continues to refuse to recognize Pfanner’s role and has now (1) submitted erroneous and fraudulent Statements of Information to the California Secretary of State on Plaintiff’s behalf, in addition to having (2) filed and submitted erroneous tax returns to the IRS and California FTB on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues it will suffer irreparable injury if Defendant Anderson is not enjoined from acting or representing himself to third parties as 3