Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson

Plaintiff’s supplemental responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, set one, disclosed that Plaintiff was involved in an incident at CSS, which caused pain to her low back. (Gamero Decl. ¶ 8; Supp. FI Resp. No. 10.3.) “As discovery has continued, Defendant[] became aware that Plaintiff’s incident at [CSS] was . . . significant,” and “caused her to seek emergency care and caused her to take time off work.” (Gamero Decl. ¶ 9; see also medical records attached as Ex. C to Opp’n.)

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 08/08/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Department 54

In June 2023, Defendant served the subject Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to the Custodian of Records for CSS (“Subpoena”). The Subpoena seeks:

Any and all documents and records, and all writings, including, but not limited to, employment, payroll and applications for employment, work absence and incident reports, personnel records, pre-employment exam records and progress reports, pertaining to [Plaintiff’s] employment. (Subpoena, attached as Ex. A to Mot.) Plaintiff’s counsel was served with a copy of the Subpoena on June 18, 2024. (Decl. of Justin Farahi ISO Mot. ¶ 4.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to quash the Subpoena on the basis that it “seeks employment records in violation of [her] right to privacy.” (Not. of Mot. & Mot. (“Mot.”) 2:4-8, 4:25.) Plaintiff argues that the Subpoena “is extremely overbroad in light of the privacy rights implicated.” (Id. at 5:16.) In the alternative, Plaintiff states the Court should issue a protective order effectively limiting the Subpoena “so that [it] would cover only those records directly relevant to the Incident and the legal matter of the lawsuit.” (Id. at 6:3-6.) Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. (Id. at 7:3-6, 7:11-13.)

Defendant[1] opposes the motion, rejoining that the Subpoena is “directly relevant to the issues in the instant Litigation and [is] required so that Defendant[] can fully assess Plaintiff’s damages.” (Opp’n 2:4-6.) Defendant argues:

Given the uncertainty of Plaintiff’s wage loss claim and her failure to provide proper and adequate responses [to written discovery], Defendant[] had no option but to subpoena Plaintiff’s employment and wage loss records. Also, given Plaintiff’s work-related injury, which is the likely cause of her wage loss (and could have contributed to her damages), it is Defendant’s position that any work-related document is relevant, as Defendant[is] entitled to know if there are any additional causes/reasons for Plaintiff’s wage loss. (Gamero Decl. ¶ 12). Lastly, given that Plaintiff’s employment with [CSS] began in August 2020, seven (7) months after the incident, any possible invasion into Plaintiff’s privacy is very minimal. As such, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff’s motion to quash be denied. (Gamero Decl. ¶ 13). (Opp’n 4:15-23.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 08/08/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Department 54

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, the Court:

[M]ay make an order quashing [a] subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the parties, the witness, the consumer, or the employee from unreasonable demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the witness, consumer, or employee. “ ‘In general, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2017.010.)’ [Citation.]” (County of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621, 638- 639.) However, “ ‘[e]ven if information is otherwise discoverable, it may be protected by a constitutional privilege [including] the right to privacy.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 639.)

“The California Constitution (Cal Const art I, § 1) creates ‘a zone of privacy’ that protects against unwarranted compelled disclosure of private or personal information and extends to a person’s confidential financial affairs as well as to the details of an individual’s personal life. [Citations.] [¶] This right to privacy protects an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion. [Citations.]” (Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civ. Proceedings – Discovery (Cal. CJER Sept. 2022 Update) § 4.140.) Like medical records, a person’s employment records are within the constitutionally protected zone of privacy. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530, disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 557.)

Unlike an evidentiary privilege, a person’s constitutionally-protected right to privacy “is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery [citation].” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024 update) ¶ 8:294 [citing cases].) “The showing required to overcome the protection depends on the nature of the privacy right asserted; in some cases, a simple balancing test is sufficient, while in others, a compelling interest must be shown.” (Ibid.) “Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557.)

“In determining whether . . . discovery . . . would violate state constitutional privacy rights, [courts] must apply the framework the California Supreme Court established in Hill v National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 C4th 1, 26 CR2d 834.” (Cal. Judges Benchbook, supra, at ¶ 4.146 [citing County of Los Angeles, supra, at pp. 629, 640].) Under Hill, a party who alleges an

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 08/08/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Department 54

invasion of must establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and (3) conduct by the defendant that constitutes a serious invasion of privacy. (Mathews v Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 769.) The party seeking discovery of the subject information “may prevail by negating any of these three elements or by pleading and proving that the invasion of privacy is justified because it substantively furthers one or more countervailing interests. The [party asserting a privacy invasion] may then rebut the . . . assertion of countervailing interests by showing that there are feasible and effective alternatives to [obtain the information] that have a lesser impact on [their] privacy interests.” (Cal. Judges Benchbook, supra, at ¶ 4.416 [citing Mathews, supra, and Hill, supra].)

“The court must then ‘carefully balance’ the interests involved: i.e., the claimed right of privacy versus the public interest in obtaining just results in litigation.” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 8:323 [citing cases] [emphasis omitted].) “ ‘The court must consider the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure and availability of alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. [Citation.]’ ” (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754-755.) “ ‘Based on an application of these factors, the more sensitive the nature of the personal information that is sought to be discovered, the more substantial the showing of the need for the discovery that will be required before disclosure will be permitted. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 755.)

“The party asserting a privacy interest has the burden of establishing its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion. Against this showing, the judge must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies.” (Cal. Judges Benchbook, supra, at § 4.146 [citing Williams, supra, 3 Cal. 5th at p. 557].)

Applying these legal standards, the Court finds that the Subpoena does not improperly intrude upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Although Plaintiff has a legally protected privacy interest in her employment records, Defendant’s proffered interests in favor of disclosure outweigh her right to privacy in this case based upon the motion record. The scope of records at issue is minimized by Plaintiff’s length of employment with CSS (4 months). Also, Defendant has shown the difficulty it has encountered in trying to obtain information concerning Plaintiff’s wage loss claim by less intrusive means.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied.[2] Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions (Opp’n 9:6), is unsupported by evidence and is denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] The Court notes that the opposition is filed by Defendant and co-defendant CC

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 08/08/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Department 54

Amulet Management, LLC. However, the Subpoena was issued only by Defendant. CC Amulet Management, LLC has not shown how it has standing to oppose the motion. Therefore, the Court limits its discussion to the opposition as made by Defendant.

[2] The Court notes that Plaintiff states in her moving papers that compliance with the Subpoena is impossible because “Chartwell Staffing Solutions, with address at 1300 Oliver Road, Suite 280, Fairfield, CA 94534, no longer exists.” (Separate Statement ISO Mot. 2:17-21.) To the extent this statement is true, Plaintiff has not shown how it is a basis for her to seek to quash the Subpoena.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-