KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash or modify. CRS# A-23136-001 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Mark Fickes

PROPOSED TENTAIVE RULING

Plaintiff Vanessa Kaskiris's ("Kaskiris") motion to quash or modify the deposition subpoena for production of business records that defendant The Regents of the University of California ("The Regents") directed to Stanford University is GRANTED in part.

BACKGROUND

The Regents served the subpoena on July 31, 2026, and it set an examination date of August 27, 2026. (Candappa Dec. ¶¶ 3-4.) The subpoena seeks Kaskiris's Stanford Impact Lab records for May 1, 2023 through July 31, 2024, including her personnel file, salary and rate-of-pay records, records of disciplinary action, letters of warning, records of termination or resignation, and grievances filed by or against her. (Candappa Dec., Ex. 1 [Attach. 3].) Kaskiris does not oppose production of records sufficient to establish her dates of employment and salary or rate of pay. She objects to the remaining categories on privacy grounds. (Candappa Dec. ¶ 6.) On Kaskiris's ex parte application, the Court stayed production pending this hearing.

LEGAL STANDARD

An employee whose employment records are subpoenaed may move to quash or modify the subpoena before the production date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.6, subd. (f)(1).) The Court may quash the subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance on stated terms, including protective orders, and may make any order necessary to protect against unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) Because the subpoena seeks records protected by the constitutional right to privacy (Cal.

Const., art. I, § 1), the Court evaluates the objection under the threshold set out in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37, which requires a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, and a serious threatened intrusion. The Court then balances the privacy interest against the need for disclosure, taking account of feasible alternatives and protective measures. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) A compelling interest is not required unless the intrusion is an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy. (Id. at pp. 556-557.)

The party seeking constitutionally protected information bears the burden of showing that it is directly relevant, and any permitted intrusion must be narrowly tailored to that need. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859; Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526-527; Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7, 10-11.)

DISCUSSION 22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash or modify. CRS# A-23136-001 in Department 518 Kaskiris's compensation, dates of employment, and the fact and reason of her separation from Stanford are directly relevant to the mitigation defense, which her damages claim places in issue. A wrongfully discharged employee's recovery is the agreed compensation less what the employee earned or with reasonable effort could have earned from comparable employment, and the duty to mitigate includes retaining comparable employment, so a for-cause loss of a subsequent position bears on damages. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2017.010; Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 176, 181-182; Stanchfield v. Hamer Toyota, Inc. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1501-1503.) The intrusion worked by these limited records is modest, and any residual privacy concern is adequately addressed by the protective order previously approved in this action rather than by preclusion. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 556-557.)

The balance of the subpoena stands differently. The Regents have not shown that Kaskiris's Stanford separation was for cause, and the demand for the entire personnel file, all disciplinary records and letters of warning, and all grievances filed by or against her rests on the possibility that those records might reveal a for-cause separation. That predictive showing does not satisfy the direct-relevance and narrow-tailoring requirements governing discovery of protected records, particularly where the mitigation-relevant facts are obtainable through the limited production ordered below. (Harding Lawson, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 10-11; Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387-1388.)

CONCLUSION

The motion to quash is GRANTED in PART. Specifically, it is DENIED as to records sufficient to establish (a) Kaskiris's dates of employment at Stanford, (b) her salary or rate of pay, and (c) whether her separation was voluntary or involuntary and, if involuntary, whether for cause, for the period May 1, 2023 through July 31, 2024. The Regents may obtain those records, and their production shall be subject to the protective order previously approved in this action.

The motion is GRANTED as to the remaining categories of Attachment 3, including the general personnel file, records of disciplinary action, letters of warning, and complaints or grievances filed by or against Kaskiris. The subpoena is quashed as to those categories, without prejudice to a renewed and narrowed request supported by a specific showing that the Stanford separation was for cause.

Within five court days of this order, The Regents shall serve a copy of this order on Stanford University and the deposition officer, and thereafter, shall serve an amended subpoena limited to the categories permitted in paragraph 1.

The stay of production shall remain in effect until Stanford's production conforms to this order.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV023136: KASKIRIS vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash or modify. CRS# A-23136-001 in Department 518 preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)