Case Number: BC587889??? Hearing Date: April 25, 2016??? Dept: 97
36
SELENE GARCIA and DESIREE SICAIROS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARIANA NAVARRETE and STEPHEN GURROLA,
Defendants.
Case No.: BC 587889
Hearing Date: April 25, 2016
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT?S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF?S EMPLOYMENT RECORDS
This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 1, 2014. On February 25, 2016, defense counsel issued a deposition subpoena for Plaintiff Desiree Sicairos?s employment records from the City of Montebello. (Chun Decl., ?? 4-5, Ex. 1.) From the City of Montebello, Defendants seek: ?All attendance records, job description, absences from employment, vacation and sick leave? from any and all dates.? (Id.) On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff objected to the deposition subpoena, contending ?Plaintiff is not making any past or future claims for loss of earnings or any claim for loss of earning capacity.? (Chun Decl., ? 6, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff now moves to quash the deposition subpoena for this same reason, contending that defense counsel has failed to respond to several meet and confer efforts. (Chun Decl., ?? 7-12, Exs. 3-4; CCP ? 1987.1)
In Opposition, Defendants contend that this subpoena was revised and narrowly tailored after Plaintiff initially objected to Defendants? first subpoena on February 22, 2016. (Hillier Decl., ?? 5-7, Exs. A-C.) Defendants argue documents pertaining to Plaintiff?s attendance record and job description while working at the City of Montebello are relevant ?to establish the nature and extent of her injuries as well as her ability to continue [sic] working and any potential prior (work) related injury claims to same parts of her body.? (Hillier Decl., ? 10.)
Defendants? position is not persuasive. Plaintiff is not seeking a claim for loss of income or loss of earning capacity in this lawsuit. As noted in Reply, Plaintiff has also served verified responses to Form Interrogatories stating that, in the past 10 years, Plaintiff has not made a written claim or demand for worker?s compensation benefits. Information pertaining to Plaintiff?s attendance while employed with the City of Montebello simply appears to have no relevance to this matter, and the Opposition fails to establish how records of Plaintiff?s attendance, job description, vacation, and sick leave would help Defendants determine the causation element of Plaintiff?s injuries. The Court rejects Defendants? contention that Plaintiff has placed her medical condition at issue; the information sought does not pertain to Plaintiff?s medical records. Defendants have also not met their burden of establishing a ?compelling? interest for the subject information such that it would trump Plaintiff?s right to privacy. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856; Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525.)
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff?s motion to quash the subpoena issued to the City of Montebello is granted. Plaintiff?s request for sanctions and costs against Defendants and their counsel is also granted. Defendants and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay $1635.00 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 20 days of notice of this order.
Plaintiffs to provide notice.