Michael De Leon vs. J.M Equipment Company, Inc

34-2023-00334819-CU-WT-GDS: Michael De Leon vs. J.M Equipment Company, Inc 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production in Department 53

Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Michael De Leon’s motion to compel Defendant J.M. Equipment Company, Inc.’s further responses to requests for production (set three) is granted as set forth below.

In this employment action, Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendant for approximately 28 years. He alleges that just prior to going on medical leave for a hip procedure, Defendant terminated his employment as a purported reduction in force. Plaintiff alleges that while Defendant claims he was terminated due to a business downturn and lack of work, the same day his employment was terminated, Defendant requested other workers to work overtime and hired additional employees. Plaintiff, who was 56 years old when his employment was terminated, was replaced by someone named Jarvis three days later. Defendant also allegedly hired twenty employees whose average age was 29 years old since the time Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action, including FEHA based causes of action for discrimination and retaliation.

At issue on the instant motion are Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents nos. 43-50. The requests asked for documents related to Jarvis, documents related to Defendant’s “ranking” of candidates for layoff, and performance reviews for other employees. Defendant declined to provide any substantive responses to these requests and instead interposed objections based on relevance, third-party privacy, undue burden, and also based on proprietary business information. Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant’s further responses.

The Court will address the requests in the order presented in Plaintiff’s moving papers.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334819-CU-WT-GDS: Michael De Leon vs. J.M Equipment Company, Inc 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production in Department 53

deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

Nos. 43, 47-50

The motion is granted. These requests ask for performance reviews for Jarvis conducted in October 2021, and reviews other employees who were identified in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and all road mechanics and shop mechanics working at the same location as Plaintiff in 2020 and 2021.

As noted above, Defendant interposed objections to these requests on the basis of relevance, third-party privacy, undue burden, and proprietary business information.

While Defendant opposed the motion, it only discussed its privacy objection and made no attempt to justify its objections based on relevance, undue burden and proprietary business information. As the party opposing the motion to compel further responses, Defendant had the burden to substantiate its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Having failed to do so with respect to the relevance, undue burden and proprietary business information objections those objections are overruled must be removed from any further response.

Defendant argues that disclosure of the requested information would constitute a serious invasion of third-party privacy interests. Defendant’s actual argument in this regard consists of two paragraphs. (Opp. 5:14-6:2.) Defendant cites two cases and then simply asserts that the employees have a “reasonable expectation of privacy in their personnel files containing performance reviews or evaluations, offer letters, and/or job postings.” (Id. 5:25-27.) The Court notes that while Plaintiff’s motion individually discussed his requests, Defendant did not and simply argued that all requests invaded third-party privacy rights.

The right to privacy provided for in Cal. Const., art. I, § 1 may be invoked by a litigant as justification for refusal to answer questions or respond to requests for information that unreasonably intrude on that right. A party asserting a privacy claim has the burden of establishing each element, specifically: 1. A legally protected privacy interest; 2. A reasonable expectation of privacy; and 3. A serious invasion of the privacy interest. (See, e.g. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1)

Defendant is correct that employment records are protected by the right to privacy. “It is clear personnel records and employment history are within the [privacy] protection provided by the state and federal Constitutions.” (San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1097 [disapproved by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334819-CU-WT-GDS: Michael De Leon vs. J.M Equipment Company, Inc 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production in Department 53

fn. 8 only to the extent that the case assumed without conducting the Hill analysis that a compelling need is automatically required when a party seeks discovery of private information].) Defendant is incorrect, however, to the extent that it argues that Plaintiff can only overcome any privacy right through demonstration of a compelling interest. “Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 557.)

These requests seek a performance review conducted by Defendant of Jarvis in October 2021, in addition to reviews conducted of the shop and road mechanics hired after January 2021, and reviews conducted of shop and road mechanics in 2020 and 2021 at the same location where Plaintiff worked. According to Plaintiff, these documents are highly relevant to Defendant’s stated reasons for terminating his employment given that Defendant stated that Plaintiff was selected for layoff after a “comparative analysis” and performance-based ranking of employees.

Plaintiff also points to Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff was selected due to “poor judgment, poor diagnostic skills, and problematic customer relations.” Plaintiff contends he is entitled to the reviews to determine whether the mechanics who replaced him had similar performance issues but were not laid off because of their age. In advancing his FEHA based claims for discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff seeks to show that Defendant’s stated reasons for termination were pretextual. “Plaintiffs in FEHA cases can prove their cases by presenting either direct evidence, such as statements or admissions, or circumstantial evidence, such as comparative or statistical evidence.” (Gupta v.

Trustees of California State University (2019) 40 Cal. App. 5th 510, 519.) “Comparative evidence is ‘evidence that [the plaintiff] was treated differently from others who were similarly situated” but are outside the plaintiff’s protected class.” (Id. [quoting Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 803, 817].) “[I]ndividuals are similarly situated when they have similar jobs and display similar conduct.” (Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2003) 349 F.3d 634, 641.) Here, Plaintiff seeks information regarding evaluations of individuals who performed the same job as Plaintiff, were younger than him, and were hired to replace him.

Defendant makes no argument that such evidence would not be relevant other than arguing Plaintiff’s justification relies on statements it made in an arbitration related to a grievance filed by the union. Even assuming that Defendant was attempting to argue that such statements would not be admissible at trial, this would not preclude discovery. Indeed, in the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [Citations omitted.]

Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.) Evidence that could show that Defendant did not lay off other, younger employees, with similar performance issues, certainly meets the broad definition of relevance in the discovery context.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334819-CU-WT-GDS: Michael De Leon vs. J.M Equipment Company, Inc 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production in Department 53

As noted above, Plaintiff was only required to demonstrate a compelling need for the information if the requested constituted an obvious invasion of interests fundamental to personal autonomy. Defendant failed to make such a showing. First, Plaintiff is not requesting entire personnel files, instead only performance evaluations of employees with the same job title as Plaintiff, which as set forth above are plainly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant makes no showing that disclosure of an employee’s performance evaluation in these circumstances constitutes an obvious invasion of interests fundamental to personal autonomy.

Moreover, as to all of the employees other than Jarvis, the employees have been identified with an employee number as opposed to a name. Defendant does not dispute this and Plaintiff is willing to continue with this identification method at this time. Given that Defendant has identified the employees with a number, Defendant can simply redact any names from responsive documents and instead place the employee number of the document to the extent it is not already there. In addition, there is a protective order in place in this action to address any privacy concerns.

Producing evaluations which do not disclose names does not constitute an obvious invasion of interests fundamental to personal autonomy. With respect to the evaluation conducted for Jarvis in October 2021, given that Plaintiff is already aware of this employee’s first name, there also does not appear to be any obvious invasion of interest fundamental to personal autonomy in disclosing this evaluation, again considering the protective order in place. Defendant may also redact Jarvis’ last name.

In short, the motion is granted as to requests no. 43, and 47-50. Defendant must provide a further response removing the objections and setting forth a substantive response consistent with the above.

Nos. 44-46

The motion is granted. These requests asked for Defendant’s ranking of candidates for layoffs in 2021, any offer letter to Jarvis, and the job posting Jarvis responded to in 2021. Again, Defendant interposed objections based on relevance, burden, third-party privacy, proprietary business information, and overbreadth.

Once again, Defendant’s motion made no mention of any objection other than privacy. As set forth above, as the party opposing the motion to compel further responses, Defendant had the burden to substantiate its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co., supra, 22 Cal.4th at 255.) Thus, all objections based on relevance, undue burden, proprietary business information, and overbreadth and overruled.

While the relevance objection was overruled based on Defendant’s failure to address it, the Court notes that the subject requests meet the broad definition of relevance in the discovery context discussed above. Defendant indicated that it ranked employees for layoffs based on job performance and that Plaintiff was selected based on this ranking. The relevance of this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00334819-CU-WT-GDS: Michael De Leon vs. J.M Equipment Company, Inc 03/13/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production in Department 53

document is plain. Further Jarvis’ offer letter and the job posting he responded too are also plainly relevant as Jarvis is the individual who was hired shortly after Plaintiff. Apparently, Defendant contends that Jarvis had a different job title than Plaintiff, but Plaintiff is not required to take Defendant at its word and is entitled to the information to verify that claim.

Additionally, Defendant again made no showing that these requests constituted an obvious invasion of interests fundamental to personal autonomy which would require Plaintiff to demonstrate a compelling need. First, Defendant made no argument which would demonstrate that a ranking of employees based on performance involves any private information at all, much less information that would be an obvious invasion of any privacy right. As to the offer letter and job posting Defendant again makes no specific argument.

While the offer letter may contain salary information, as pointed out by Plaintiff, the salary of Defendant’s employees is not private because it is set by a collective bargaining agreement. With respect to the job posting, the Court fails entirely to see how a posting Defendant made to solicit employment applications could contain third-party information protected by any right to privacy. Again, Defendant does not show otherwise. Further, as mentioned above, there is a protective order in place, and Defendant may continue identifying employees with an employee number.

While Defendant opposed the motion, it only discussed its privacy objection and made no attempt to justify its objections based on relevance, undue burden and proprietary business information. As the party opposing the motion to compel further responses, Defendant had the burden to substantiate its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Having failed to do so with respect to the relevance, undue burden and proprietary business information objections those objections are overruled must be removed from any further response.

The motion is granted as to requests nos. 44-46. Defendant must provide a further response removing the objections and setting forth a substantive response consistent with the above.

In summary, the motion to compel further responses is granted. No later than March 27, 2025, Defendant shall serve further verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests nos. 43-50 consistent with the above.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied. The Court finds that Defendant’s opposition, although unsuccessful, was substantially justified. Alternatively, the Court finds that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.