Party Discovery: RIGOLI -V- C.R. ENGLAND, INC., ET AL Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                7




 1   Jeffrey   A Rager       Esq    SBN 185216                                      F 1 L   p
     James     Y Yoon       ESCl   SBN 289906                              SUPERIOR
                                                                            cSANBE COURT OF CALIFORNIA
 2   THE RAGER LAW FIRM                                                              NARQiNODSTRpCT
     970 West 190 Street Suite 340
 3   Torrance California 90502                                                     NOV 3 0 2p16
     Telephone   310 527 6994
 4   Facsimile 310 527 6800                                             gy              C    e


     Email jeff a ragerlawoffices com
 5              ames a ragerlawoffices com                                     DANIE q T R qpO DEPUTY
 6   Melanie Savarese Esq SBN 216950
     Savarese Law Firm
 7   37 W Sierra Madre Blvd
     Sierra Madre CA 91024
 8   Phone      626    355 3264
     Facsimile        626   355 3491
 9   Email     melanie a savareselawfirm com


10   Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIANNE RIGOLI

11                                 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12                                     FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO


13

14   BRIANNE RIGOLI                                         CASE No     CIVDS1502545

15                                                           Assigned To     Hon   Janet M Frangie    Dept
                                         Plaintiff          S29
16
               vs                                           PLAINTIFF S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
17                                                          OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
                                                            PLAINTIFF S SUBPOENA FOR
18   C R ENGLAND INC                 a Utah   Corporation   PRODUCTION OF EMPLOYMENT
     ENGLAND GLOBAL LOGISTICS USA INC                       RECORDS OF CREZETTE HARRIS
19   a Utah    Corporation LORENA TORRES               an   SHOULDERS
     individual and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive
20                                                          Date    December 13 2016
                                                            Time    8 30
21                                                          Dept    S29
                                         Defendants
22                                                          Filed   March 2 2015
                                                            TRC     January 5 2017
23                                                          Trial   January 9 2017

24


25             Plaintiff BRIANNE RIGOLI hereby submits the following Separate Statement in Opposition
26   to Motion to Quash Plaintiff s Subpoena far Production of Employment Records of Crezette Harris

27   Shoulders

28




     PLAINTIFF S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF S SUBPOENA
                    FOR PRODUCTION OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS OF CREZETTE HARRIS SHOULDERS
 1   REQUEST NO 1


 2           All DOCUMENTS evidencing when Crezette Harris Shoulders took a medical leave

 3   REASONS AGAINST DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

 4   The Subpoenaed Documents Are Irrelevant

 5
             C R England has propounded extensive discovery to plaintiff including detailed
 6   contention interrogatories about the bases for her claims Yet plaintiff has failed to provide any
 7   Information that would indicate that Ms Shoulders entirepersonnel file is relevant to this

 8   action Not even records pertaining to Ms Shoulders termination date or medical leave are

 9   relevant



10   The Subpoenaed Documents Are Protected By the Right to Privacy

11           According to Board ofTrustees v Superior Court 1981                  119 Cal App3d 516 the

12   employment records of an individual other than plaintiffare within a constitutionally protected
13
     zone of privacy The court explained that inquiry into one s private affairs will not be constitutionally
14   justified simply because inadmissible and irrelevant matter sought to be discovered might lead to other

15   and relevant   evidence      Id   at   525   emphasis added        E ven when discovery of private information

16   is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation it will not be automatically allowed there
17   must then be a careful balancing ofthe compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental

18   right of
                privacy     Id   emphasis     added    internal    citations   omitted   And even when that balance

19    weighs in favor of disclosure of private information the scope of such disclosure will be nanowly
20   circumscribed        ld at 526

21          In Harding Lawson Associates v Superior Court 1992 1 O Cal App 4th 7 a wrongful

22   diseharge action plaintiff sought theproduction of personnel records of defendant employer s

23   employees Relying on Board of Trustees the court determined that plaintiff was not entitled to

24   the records because the balance weighs in favor of third pruty privacy protection unless the
25   litigant can show a compelling need for the particulru documents and that the information cannot

26   reasonably be obtained through depositions        or   from   nonconfidential sources   Id   at   10   As these cases


27   make clear the burden is on the party seeking the protected information to establish why and how an
28   individual s right to privacy is outweighed not only by relevance buf by a compelling need for the



      PLAINTIFF S SEPARATE STATEMENT N OPPOSITION TO MOT ON TO QUASHPLAINTIFF S SUBPOENA
                 FOR PRODUCT ON OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS OF CREZETTE HARRIS SHOULDERS