This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/22/2020 at 13:40:14 (UTC).

JORGE TOLANO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/20/2018 JORGE TOLANO filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TERESA A. BEAUDET and JAMES R. DUNN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3167

  • Filing Date:

    04/20/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

TERESA A. BEAUDET

JAMES R. DUNN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

TOLANO JORGE

Defendants and Respondents

GUTIERREZ BERTHA

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

GURROLA MIREYA

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

CRENSHAW RENEE

ANDERSON LEANA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

REISNER ADAM ESQ.

REISNER ADAM JASON

FIELDS ANDREA LAUREN

TAYLOR GREGORY RAY

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ

BURKWITZ PETERSON BRADFORD

PETERSON GEORGE ERNEST

SALEH KRYSTAL ANN

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MSJ AND TRIAL DATES

9/14/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MSJ AND TRIAL DATES

Declaration - DECLARATION OF GREG TAYLOR, ESQ. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTS ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MSC PROGRAM

2/27/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF GREG TAYLOR, ESQ. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTS ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MSC PROGRAM

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE DECLARATION RE INTAKE FORM)

2/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE DECLARATION RE INTAKE FORM)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/3/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE AND DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS

3/12/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE AND DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND MSJ HEARING DATE

3/27/2020: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND MSJ HEARING DATE

Order - ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS

1/23/2020: Order - ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS

Declaration - DECLARATION OF GARLAND THOMAS

12/13/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF GARLAND THOMAS

Proof of Personal Service

12/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

12/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE MSJ/...)

1/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE MSJ/...)

Informal Discovery Conference

7/19/2019: Informal Discovery Conference

Motion to Quash

5/9/2019: Motion to Quash

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION

5/14/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

3/15/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Request for Judicial Notice

2/25/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

DEFENDANTS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LEANA ANDERSON, MIREYA GURROLA, BERTHA GUTIERREZ, AND RENEE CRENSHAW'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF, JORGE TOLANO'S COMPLAINT

8/13/2018: DEFENDANTS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LEANA ANDERSON, MIREYA GURROLA, BERTHA GUTIERREZ, AND RENEE CRENSHAW'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF, JORGE TOLANO'S COMPLAINT

105 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/24/2021
  • Hearing03/24/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • Hearing03/12/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Hearing03/05/2021 at 16:00 PM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2020
  • Hearing12/07/2020 at 14:00 PM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • Docketat 4:00 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re lodge trial binders) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Continue MSJ and Trial Dates) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
177 More Docket Entries
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jorge Tolano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jorge Tolano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jorge Tolano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) ACTUAL/PERCEIVED DISABILITY HARASSMENT, VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE 12940 ET SEQ.; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jorge Tolano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC703167    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

jorge tolano,

Plaintiff,

vs.

county of los angeles, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 703167

Hearing Date:

January 23, 2020

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS SEEKING PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Background

Plaintiff Jorge Tolano (“Tolano”) filed this action on April 20, 2018 against Defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”), Leana Anderson (“Anderson””), Mireya Gurrola (“Gurrola”), Bertha Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”), and Renee Crenshaw (“Crenshaw”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on February 25, 2019. Tolano’s claims arise from his employment with the County at Rancho Los Amigos County Hospital (“Rancho”). Tolano alleges that he was subjected to unlawful conduct by his supervisors and managers, including being discriminated and retaliated against due to his disabilities.

On March 7, 2019, the County served a deposition subpoena for production of business records to Tolano’s former employer, Kimco Staffing Services, Inc. (“Kimco”). (Taylor Decl.,

¶ 2, Ex. A.) The records requested are as follows: “any and all employment records, wage records, personnel records, attendance records, employment applications, W-2’s, W-4’s, contracts, 1099’s, resumes, payroll records, vacation schedule, sick leave, insurance records, benefits, evaluations and any other records, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically pertaining to the employment of Jorge Tolano . . . .” (Taylor Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, Attachment 3.) Counsel for Tolano met and conferred with counsel for the County to seek to have the County withdraw or modify the subpoena, but they were unable to resolve the dispute. (Taylor Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) The parties engaged in an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) on July 24, 2019 but were again unable to resolve their dispute. (Saleh Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)

Tolano now moves for an order to quash the subpoena or, in the alternative, for a protective order to keep the requested documents under seal for an in camera inspection so that the Court can decide which documents must be produced. The County opposes.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a) provides:

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.

Tolano contends that his employment records from Kimco are irrelevant and overbroad. Tolano worked for Kimco for only a few months in or around 2012, and he worked at Rancho starting in or around 2013. Tolano contends that none of his claims in this lawsuit have any relation to his employment with Kimco, and that the County’s request is overbroad as to time and scope. The County counters that Tolano’s records from Kimco are not overbroad as to time because they are necessarily limited to the few months he worked for Kimco, and that they are not irrelevant because Tolano claims that his disabilities began prior to his employment at Rancho and that his disabilities have been exacerbated while working at Rancho. The County argues that Tolano’s employment records at Kimco may reference any injuries suffered by Tolano at work, any pre-existing disabilities, and any work restrictions or medical leave requested by Tolano while working at Kimco. Based on these facts, the Court finds that there are at least some documents that are discoverable—those relating to Tolano’s health or medical condition at the time he was employed by Kimco. But the Court notes that there is no argument for the relevance of any of the other documents sought by the subpoena, and in particular, those that clearly would not contain information about Tolano’s health or medical condition, such as his W-2’s.

Tolano also argues that production of the Kimco documents would violate his right to privacy. The California Supreme Court has approved of the framework set forth in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35, for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) “The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Ibid.) “A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Ibid.)

There is no dispute that Tolano has a legally protected privacy interest in his employment records. (See Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1251 [noting an “obvious privacy interest” in employment records of nonparties].) Tolano argues that he has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances because of the inherently private nature of his employment records. Tolano also argues that the threatened intrusion is serious because of its overbroad nature. The County seeks “any and all records” pertaining to Tolano, including records and documents that presumably have no connection to Tolano’s claims or asserted damages in this case.

The County argues that disclosure would serve a legitimate and countervailing interest—the County’s interest in defending against Tolano’s claims with adequate and complete information. (See Puerto v. Superior Court, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1251 [legitimate and countervailing interests include “the interest of the requesting party, fairness to the litigants in conducting the litigation, and the consequences of granting or restricting access to the information”].) As already discussed above, Tolano has placed in issue disabilities and injuries that already existed at the time of his employment at Rancho. Because Tolano worked at Kimco right before he started working at Rancho, any Kimco records relating to Tolano’s health or medical condition are highly relevant.

Tolano suggests as an alternative to disclosure that the County focus only on Tolano’s records during his employment at Rancho, but as noted by the County, this alternative would not serve any of the County’s interests in seeking the Kimco records. As another alternative, Tolano suggests that the County focus only on Tolano’s workers’ compensation records pertaining to his employment with Kimco. The County already has these documents, and Tolano contends that these documents will also contain information regarding Tolano’s disabilities. Finally, Tolano suggests that the scope of the subpoena be narrowed to “less private information.” The Court finds that, in balance, this last alternative would have been the most feasible one if the documents at issue had not already been produced. But because it appears that Kimco has already produced the records (see Saleh Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B), the course of action that best balances the competing interests of the parties is to follow the procedures set forth in Exhibit B to the Saleh Declaration, with modifications. First, the Court finds that a protective order to protect the confidentiality of the Kimco records is appropriate. Second, Tolano will review the documents produced by Kimco with the Court’s comments above in mind, and make written objections to documents or portions of documents. Third, the parties will meet and confer regarding the objections, again with the Court’s comments above in mind. Fourth, the parties will attend an IDC to resolve any remaining disputes.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Tolano’s motion to quash is granted, in part, as set forth above. The Court will discuss with the parties at the hearing a timetable for implementing the discovery procedure outlined above. No sanctions are awarded.

Tolano is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: January 23, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court