Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 08:07:38 (UTC).

DAVID LOPEZ VS BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/26/2017 DAVID LOPEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8041

  • Filing Date:

    12/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LOPEZ DAVID

Defendants and Respondents

SINANIAN DEVELOPMENT INC.

BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAMBERT EARLE ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

WEINSTEIN MARK A

 

Court Documents

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SINANIAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO THE UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF DAVID LOPEZ

5/18/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SINANIAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO THE UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF DAVID LOPEZ

Substitution of Attorney

2/4/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Request for Dismissal

4/5/2019: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

5/10/2019: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

5/29/2019: Request for Dismissal

SUMMONS

12/26/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES I. NEGLIGENT EXERCISE OF RETAINED CONTROL 2. NEGLIGENCE 3. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

12/26/2017: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES I. NEGLIGENT EXERCISE OF RETAINED CONTROL 2. NEGLIGENCE 3. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by David Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Request for Dismissal (Filed but not Entered); Filed by David Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Request for Dismissal ((Not Entered))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Sinanian Development, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SINANIAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO THE UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF DAVID LOPEZ

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Sinanian Development, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by David Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES I. NEGLIGENT EXERCISE OF RETAINED CONTROL 2. NEGLIGENCE 3. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688041    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DAVID LOPEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC688041

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 25, 2021

 

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, David Lopez filed this action against Defendants, Bob French Construction, Inc. and Sinanian Development, Inc. for damages Plaintiff sustained when fell from a scaffolding while in the scope of his employment. Plaintiff alleges Defendants owned, leased, assembled and installed the subject scaffolding.

    On 10/20/20, Defendant Sinanian Development, Inc. (“Defendant”) served eight deposition subpoenas for production of business records on George Electric Co., Valence Staffing Group Inc, AllCom Electric, Outsource Telecom, LLC, All Power Systems, Premier Electrical Staffing, Ducros Electrical Contracting and Design, and Priority Power Inc., who are Plaintiff’s former and current employers. The subpoenas served on each’s Cutodian of Records seek:

    1. All records related to disability from work due to accident of January 4, 2016;

    2. Dates of employment;

    3. Dates missed from work due to accident of January 4, 2016;

    4. Application for employment;

    5. Payroll records documenting all compensation paid;

    6. Records of disciplinary action; and/or

    7. Records for all training provided.

    (Mot. Exh. 2; Sep. Statement at p. 2:4-10.)

    Plaintiff now moves to quash the subject deposition subpoenas.

  2. Motion to Quash

  1. Analysis

    Plaintiff argues the subpoenas are overbroad, harassing and invade Plaintiff’s right to privacy and will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff contends the subpoenas essentially seek Plaintiff’s entire personnel file from his employers, Defendant can make showing of compelling interest or need to outweigh Plaintiff’s right to privacy, including sensitive financial information.

    In opposition, Defendant asserts a compelling need for the requested records does not always need to be shown. Defendant contends Plaintiff’s employment records are directly relevant to this action and the information relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for loss of earning cannot be obtained by any other means.

    A court “may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those 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 person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (CCP § 1987.1.) The court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas. (See, e.g., Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.) The parties’ discussion of their meet and confer efforts, or lack thereof, is irrelevant as there is no meet and confer requirement in bringing a motion to quash. (See CCP § 1987.1.)

    “[A]ny 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,” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ...” (citation).” These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and contrary to popular belief fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.)

    For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and again (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.)

    Confidential personnel files at a person's place of employment are within a zone of privacy. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530. Unlike privilege, privacy protection afforded is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery. 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. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34-35. In almost every case, disclosure may be ordered if a “compelling public interest” would be served thereby. John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199. Moreover, even if the balance weighs in favor of disclosure, the scope of disclosure must be narrowly tailored. Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652-653.

    A threatened invasion of privacy can, to be sure, be extremely grave, and to the extent it is, to conclude in a given case that only a compelling countervailing interest and an absence of alternatives will suffice to justify the intrusion may be right… Courts must [ ] place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies ... What suffices to justify an invasion will … vary according to the context. Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.

    (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

First, as to subject subpoenas’ request all records related to disability due to the accident of January 4, 2016, dates of employment, and dates missed from work due to accident of January 4, 2016, the records are directly relevant to this action. While Plaintiff may have an expectation of privacy in his employment records, there are no alternative means identified for Defendant to obtain the relevant information. Furthermore, information concerning Plaintiff’s dates of employment with each alleged employer is relevant and necessary for Defendant to determine which employer may have relevant records pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims, and to narrowly tailor any request for records to each employer.

To the extent Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas request for all records related to disability from due to accident of January 4, 2016, dates of employment, and dates missed from work due to accident of January 4, 2016, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied.

Second, as to the subpoenas’ request for applications for employment, Plaintiff contends Defendant offers no explanation for why such records are directly relevant to this action. Defendant contends that employment applications are necessary to determine whether Plaintiff ever informed his employers of his disability or work restrictions. However, employment applications often contain sensitive information, and Defendant seeks such records without limitation to time. While a plaintiff waives some expectation of privacy relating to matters in the lawsuit, Defendant does not show the requested employment applications are directly relevant to this matter.

To the extent the subject subpoenas request applications for employment, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is granted.

Third, as to the subpoenas’ request for payroll records documenting all compensation paid, Plaintiff argues the subpoenas violate Plaintiff’s financial privacy, and that Plaintiff’s W-2 forms and state and federal income tax returns are privileged. Defendant asserts it stipulates no tax records are intended to be sought, and instead the compensations records are intended to verify the amount of loss of earnings. However, although Defendant asserts it stipulates no tax records are intended to be sought, the subpoenas as drafted are overbroad and necessarily include all payroll records, which would include any tax documents included with Plaintiff’s payroll records. Furthermore, the request is overbroad because it requests all payroll records without limitation to time. Nonetheless, payroll records are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for loss of earnings.

Consequently, to the extent the subpoenas seek payroll records, the subpoenas are modified as follows: the subpoenas are narrowed to payroll records pertaining to Plaintiff for five (5) years prior to the incident to the present, but tax documents are to be withheld.

Fourth, as to the subpoenas’ request for records of disciplinary action, Defendant asserts that whether Plaintiff has been disciplined for failing to comply with safety guidelines, or excessive unexcused absences will assist the defense to both call into question Plaintiff’s credibility and mitigation of damages. While Plaintiff argues the records are not admissible, the scope of discovery is broad. However, the subpoenas as drafted are overbroad, as they seek all records concerning disciplinary action without limitation to time.

To the extent the subpoenas seek records of disciplinary action, the subpoenas are modified to limit records of disciplinary action for five (5) years prior to the incident to the present.

Finally, as to the subpoenas’ request for all training provided, Plaintiff argues primarily the information is irrelevant. Defendant contends Plaintiff testified in his deposition his employer failed to hold safety meetings, which Defendant asserts has been refuted. The scope of discovery is broad and liberally construed in favor of disclosure. However, the request as drafted is overbroad.

To the extent the subpoenas seek records for all training provided, the subpoenas are limited to training records for five years (5) prior to and including the date of the incident.

  1. Sanctions

    CCP § 1987.2 provides that the court “may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”

    Here, both Plaintiff and Defendants move for sanctions against the other. Given the motion was granted in part, and the subpoenas pertained to relevant information, the court finds both parties acted with substantial justification in making and opposing the instant motion. No sanctions are awarded.

    Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

    Dated this 25th day of March, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC688041    Hearing Date: November 06, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DAVID LOPEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC688041

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

November 6, 2020

 

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, David Lopez filed this action against Defendants, Bob French Construction, Inc. and Sinanian Development, Inc. for damages Plaintiff sustained when fell from a scaffolding while in the scope of his employment. Plaintiff alleges Defendants owned, leased, assembled and installed the subject scaffolding.

    On 1/24/20, Defendant Sinanian Development, Inc. (“Defendant”) served depositions subpoenas for production of business records on George Electric., All Electric, and Valence Staffing Group, who are each Plaintiff’s former employers. The subpoenas seek: “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 records, pertaining to the employment of David Lopez, DOB: 11/17/1979, SSN: UNKNOWN.”

    Plaintiff now moves to quash the subpoenas.

    This matter was originally set to be heard on 4/30/20. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the court continued this matter to 9/18/20, and ordered moving party, Plaintiff, to give notice. (4/17/20.) On 9/18/20, the matter was called for hearing, but there was no appearance by moving party, and there was no communication with the court or other counsel. Consequently, the matter was continued to 10/23/20, and the court indicated Plaintiff’s motions would be taken if Plaintiff again failed to appear.

    The court then not being available on 10/23/20, continued the matter to 11/6/20, and ordered moving Plaintiff to give notice. As of 10/30/20, Plaintiff has not filed any such notice with the court.

    Consequently, the court takes the matter off-calendar.

    Alternatively, if Plaintiff appears and can produce evidence that he properly gave notice of the subject hearing date as ordered, the court rules as follows:

  2. Analysis

    Plaintiff argues the subpoenas are overbroad, invade Plaintiff’s right to privacy, and will not lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s argument the evidence might support an affirmative defense is not persuasive as this is not a valid ground for violating an employee’s right to privacy. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends the subpoenas are overbroad because they demand a wide variety of private information from Plaintiff’s employers.

    In opposition, Defendant argues the information is relevant because Plaintiff has indicated in discovery he maintained a workers’ compensation action against his employer, General Electric, and an online public records search reveals the case was resolved by compromise in October 2018. Defendant contends the information is relevant as to what provision, if any, was provided for future medical treatment and care related to the incident. Moreover, Defendant asserts the requested documents are relevant for the following reasons:

    (a) Information about additional skills Plaintiff has acquired that could be used to mitigate his damages;

    (b) Information regarding Plaintiffs prior wages, salary, overtime, commissions, bonuses, vacation pay, and benefits which are relevant to a determination of Plaintiffs current and future earning potential as well as the kind of employment Plaintiff may obtain in an effort to mitigate his damages;

    (c) Information that reveals that Plaintiff claimed the same injuries during previous employment that he is now asserting in this action;

    (d) Information of Plaintiffs previous performance evaluations, which may reveal a pattern of Plaintiffs misconduct and/or dishonesty relevant to the issue of Plaintiffs credibility;

    (e) Information of Plaintiffs reprimands for violating workplace safety rules.

    For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and again (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.)

    Confidential personnel files at a person's place of employment are within a zone of privacy. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530. Unlike privilege, privacy protection afforded is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery. 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. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34-35. In almost every case, disclosure may be ordered if a “compelling public interest” would be served thereby. John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199. Moreover, even if the balance weighs in favor of disclosure, the scope of disclosure must be narrowly tailored. Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652-653.

    In this case, it is not clear how and every document sought in the subpoena from each of Plaintiff’s former employers is discoverable. For example, Defendant seeks to discover Plaintiff’s employment applications, which often contain sensitive information. What is more, Defendant seeks to discover payroll, work absence, incident reports, personnel records, pre-employment exam and progress records without time limitation. Notably, the parties each filed separate statements, but the statements do not go through each category of documents sought, which would be helpful; the Court cannot and will not go through each individual category to determine whether Defendant met its burden of showing its need for the responsive documents outweighs Plaintiff’s right to privacy if Defendants does not do so.

    Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is granted.

    Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

    Dated this 6th day of November, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC688041    Hearing Date: September 18, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DAVID LOPEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC688041

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

September 18, 2020

 

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, David Lopez filed this action against Defendants, Bob French Construction, Inc. and Sinanian Development, Inc. for damages Plaintiff sustained when fell from a scaffolding while in the scope of his employment. Plaintiff alleges Defendants owned, leased, assembled and installed the subject scaffolding.

    On 1/24/20, Defendant Sinanian Development, Inc. (“Defendant”) served depositions subpoenas for production of business records on George Electric., All Electric, and Valence Staffing Group, who are each Plaintiff’s former employers. The subpoenas seek: “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 records, pertaining to the employment of David Lopez, DOB: 11/17/1979, SSN: UNKNOWN.”

    Plaintiff now moves to quash the subpoenas. This matter was originally set to be heard on 4/30/20. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the court continued this matter to 9/18/20, and ordered moving party, Plaintiff, to give notice. As of 9/14/20, Plaintiff has not filed any such notice with the court.

    The hearing on the motion is continued to _________________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. If this date is not an available date for Plaintiff, Plaintiff may use the online reservation system to change the hearing date to the next available convenient date in the system.

    Alternatively, if Plaintiff can produce evidence that they properly gave notice of the subject hearing date as ordered, the court rules as follows:

  2. Analysis

    Plaintiff argues the subpoenas are overbroad, invade Plaintiff’s right to privacy, and will not lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s argument the evidence might support an affirmative defense is not persuasive as this is not a valid ground for violating an employee’s right to privacy. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends the subpoenas are overbroad because they demand a wide variety of private information from Plaintiff’s employers.

    In opposition, Defendant argues the information is relevant because Plaintiff has indicated in discovery he maintained a workers’ compensation action against his employer, General Electric, and an online public records search reveals the case was resolved by compromise in October 2018. Defendant contends the information is relevant as to what provision, if any, was provided for future medical treatment and care related to the incident. Moreover, Defendant asserts the requested documents are relevant for the following reasons:

    (a) Information about additional skills Plaintiff has acquired that could be used to mitigate his damages;

    (b) Information regarding Plaintiffs prior wages, salary, overtime, commissions, bonuses, vacation pay, and benefits which are relevant to a determination of Plaintiffs current and future earning potential as well as the kind of employment Plaintiff may obtain in an effort to mitigate his damages;

    (c) Information that reveals that Plaintiff claimed the same injuries during previous employment that he is now asserting in this action;

    (d) Information of Plaintiffs previous performance evaluations, which may reveal a pattern of Plaintiffs misconduct and/or dishonesty relevant to the issue of Plaintiffs credibility;

    (e) Information of Plaintiffs reprimands for violating workplace safety rules.

    For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and again (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.)

    Confidential personnel files at a person's place of employment are within a zone of privacy. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530. Unlike privilege, privacy protection afforded is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery. 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. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34-35. In almost every case, disclosure may be ordered if a “compelling public interest” would be served thereby. John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199. Moreover, even if the balance weighs in favor of disclosure, the scope of disclosure must be narrowly tailored. Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652-653.

    In this case, it is not clear how every document sought in the subpoena from each of Plaintiff’s former employers is discoverable. For example, Defendant seeks to discover Plaintiff’s employment applications, which often contain sensitive information. What is more, Defendant seeks to discover payroll, work absence, incident reports, personnel records, pre-employment exam and progress records without time limitation. Notably, the parties each filed separate statements, but the statements do not go through each category of documents sought, which would be helpful; the Court cannot and will not go through each individual category to determine whether Defendant met its burden of showing its need for the responsive documents outweighs Plaintiff’s right to privacy if Defendant does not do so.

    Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

    Dated this 18th day of September, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BOB FRENCH CONSTRUCTION INC . A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where SINANIAN DEVELOPMENT INC is a litigant