DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CU25-09360·solano·Civil·Employment
GRANTED

MENCHUE v. UNDERGROUND CONSTR. CO., INC., ET AL.

Motions to Quash Subpoena

Hearing date
May 15, 2026
Department
THREE
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Motion to Quash

Parties

PlaintiffMENCHUE
DefendantUNDERGROUND CONSTR. CO., INC.
DefendantUNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
DefendantELITE UNDERGROUND, INC.

Ruling

Plaintiff’s motions to quash subpoenas are granted.

From Plaintiff’s union, IBEW Local 1245-Energy Workers Center, Inc., Defendant Underground Electrical Construction Company, Inc. seeks all complaints regarding or related to it, Defendant Underground Construction Co, Inc., or Underground Construction without limitation by timeframe or subject matter. Defendant also seeks all documents concerning any complaint or grievance by Plaintiff without any limitation by timeframe, subject matter, or target, all documents concerning any complaints or grievances against Plaintiff by anyone without limitation by timeframe or subject matter, and all documents concerning the investigation into any complaints or grievances against Plaintiff by anyone without limitation by timeframe or subject matter.

From Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim administrator, Helmsman Management Services LLC, Defendant demands all documents concerning or related to any workers’ compensation claim filed by Plaintiff, including medical records and investigation material, without limitation by timeframe, subject matter, or relevance to Plaintiff’s claims. Additionally, even for documents directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, such as documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim arising out of the injuries he sustained from being hit by a semi-truck in March of 2022 (FAC, ¶¶ 26, 37), the documents are still protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy and Defendant has not shown that it has no less intrusive means to obtain them. (See, Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.4th 447, 453 [court abuses its discretion when it fails to require a less intrusive method of discovery].

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share