CHAPMAN vs LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY LLC

24CV098072: CHAPMAN vs LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NON-PARTY SPOUSE; filed by JOSEPH CHAPMAN (Plaintiff) CRS# 631982692458 in Department 16

Tentative Ruling - 07/29/2026 Victoria Kolakowski

Plaintiff Joseph Chapman’s Motion to Quash the Subpoena is granted in part.1

I.

Background

Joseph filed a Complaint against his former employer, Defendant Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC (Lawrence Lab), arising from alleged disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other reasons. (Compl. ¶¶ 11–37, Nov. 1, 2024.) Lawrence Lab filed an Answer generally denying the allegations, among other things. (Answer, Dec. 18, 2024.)

On March 4, 2026, Lawrence Lab issued a deposition subpoena to Chapman’s former wife, Maryann Martins Chapman.2 (O’Malley Decl. Opp’n Mot. Quash Subpoena ¶ 2, June 16, 2026; see also Hemming Decl. Supp. Mot. Quash Subpoena Ex. A, Mar. 16, 2026 (attaching subpoena).) In addition to testimony, the subpoena requested that Maryann produce documents showing her communications with Joseph and other persons about this action and the underlying facts, communications and documents concerning alleged domestic violence, and communications and documents with the Veterans Administration Caregiver Program. (Id. Attach. 3.)

Twelve days later, Joseph moved to quash the subpoena. (Mot. Quash Subpoena, Mar. 16, 2026.) Joseph argued that Maryann had no personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to his action and that his communications with Maryann are privileged marital communications. (Id. 3:18–4:17.) Joseph next argued that the categories asking for production of all communications were overly broad. (Id. 4:18–5:3.) Joseph further argued that the request for communications and documents is unrelated to the underlying action and is harassing. (Id. 5:4–17.)

Joseph finally argued that complying with the subpoena would unduly burden Maryann. (Id. 5:18–6:8.) Alternatively, Joseph requested a protective order prohibiting inquiry into confidential marital communications, marital counseling or therapy, private relationship matters, and alleged prior domestic disputes. (Id. 6:9–18.) Lawrence Lab opposed the Motion. (Opp’n to Mot., June 16, 2026.)

In June 2026, the Court continued the hearing on this Motion to permit the parties time to meet and confer about “narrowing the scope of [the] documents requested; and the propriety of a protective order prohibiting dissemination of any non-public information concerning any alleged domestic violence disputes between Joseph and Maryann.” (See Order Mot. Quash Subpoena § III, June 30, 2026.) The Court requested a joint separate statement briefing the Court about their further meet and confer efforts, and arguments supporting and opposing the parties’ respective position. (Id.) 24CV098072: CHAPMAN vs LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NON-PARTY SPOUSE; filed by JOSEPH CHAPMAN (Plaintiff) CRS# 631982692458 in Department 16 The parties filed a joint separate statement, as requested. (Jt.

Separate Stmt. re Mot. Quash Subpoena, July 20, 2026.) The parties discussed the intended scope of Maryann’s testimony and the scope of the document requests. (Id. 2:12–5:22.) It is unclear whether the parties also discussed the propriety of a protective order. (See generally id.)

II.

Legal Standard

Upon motion, a court may quash, modify, or direct compliance with a subpoena. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1987.1(a).)

III.

Discussion

The Court finds it proper to modify the subpoena as it concerns the document requests. The Court agrees with Joseph that the requested document categories are unreasonably broad and unduly burdensome. For instance, document requests 1 through 4 seek all communications with any person that may have any connection to this action or with the Escalon Police Department. Similarly, document request 6 seeks “[a]ll documents and communications relating to the Veterans Administration Caregiver Program.” (Hemming Decl. Ex. A, Attach. 3, at p. 2.) Further, concerning document request 5, the Court agrees with Joseph again that, at this stage, the probative value of any documents showing communications and documents concerning domestic violence between January 2023 and October 2024 is likely outweighed by the intrusion into private affairs and the potential for embarrassment and harassment.

But, concerning Maryann’s testimony, the Court finds that no modification is necessary. Counsel may adequately protect Maryann by objecting where appropriate.

The Court further finds a protective order prohibiting dissemination of any non-public information concerning any alleged domestic violence disputes between Joseph and Maryann is unnecessary as the parties have stipulated to a protective order concerning confidential information. (See Stip. & Protective Order, June 10, 2025.) The Court deems Lawrence Lab’s representation that this protective order adequately protects this information from disclosure as deeming that this information is confidential. (See Jt. Separate Stmt. 3:12–16 (“[T]here is already a protective order in place in this action, allowing Ms. Chapman’s testimony and documents to be marked as confidential and protected from disclosure.”).)

IV. Orders The Motion is granted in part.

The Court excuses Maryann from producing any document requested by the subpoena.

Maryann must appear for deposition no later than 30 days after entry of this order unless the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV098072: CHAPMAN vs LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NON-PARTY SPOUSE; filed by JOSEPH CHAPMAN (Plaintiff) CRS# 631982692458 in Department 16 parties stipulate to a later date. 1 As two persons share a last name, the Court refers to them by their first name for clarity.

The Court intends no disrespect. 2 Joseph and Maryann’s divorced on July 21, 2025. (O’Malley Decl. Opp’n Mot. Quash

Subpoena Ex. 2, at 247:2–3.) ***

The Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents to Non-Party Spouse; or, in the Alternative, for Protective Order filed by JOSEPH CHAPMAN on 03/16/2026 is Granted in Part.

Krista Hemming (Attorney) representing JOSEPH CHAPMAN (Plaintiff) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV098072: CHAPMAN vs LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NON-PARTY SPOUSE; filed by JOSEPH CHAPMAN (Plaintiff) CRS# 631982692458 in Department 16 Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017