Bicek v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S AND EARTHBOUND'S MOTIONS TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' SUBPOENAS 5 8 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 DENNIS BICEK,

Case No. 13-mc-80130 RS (NC)

12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S AND
EARTHBOUND’S MOTIONS TO
QUASH DEFENDANTS’
SUBPOENA

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14 C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., et
15
16

al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 8

17
18

This case arises from a wage and hour putative class action filed by plaintiff against

19 defendants in the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. See Dkt. No. 6.
20 Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
21 California, Case No. 13-cv-00411 MCE (KJN), and plaintiff filed a motion to remand,
22 which is currently pending before that Court.
23

Defendants have served a subpoena on Earthbound, plaintiff’s current employer,

24 which issued from this Court. Dkt. No. 6 at 31-39. The subpoena seeks “Any and all
25 records, including electronically stored information, relating to [plaintiff]’s employment
26 with Earthbound Farm Organic, LLC., covering the time period January 1, 2011 to the
27 present, including, but not limited to” numerous categories of documents listed in the
28 subpoena. Id. at 31-39. Plaintiff filed a motion to quash defendants’ subpoena in this
Case No. 13-mc-80130 RS (NC)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO QUASH
DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA

1 Court, requesting that the Court quash or modify the subpoena on the grounds that it
2 infringes on plaintiff’s right to privacy in his employment records, is not reasonably
3 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is overbroad, and unduly
4 burdensome to third party Earthbound. Earthbound also filed a motion to quash the
5 subpoena. In addition to the privacy, overbreadth, and burden objections raised by plaintiff,
6 Earthbound argues that the subpoena seeks confidential business and commercial
7 information of Earthbound that is protected from disclosure. See Dkt. Nos. 5, 8. As stated
8 in their opposition to the motions to quash, defendants have agreed to substantially limit the
9 subpoena to categories A, B, and C 1-7, and C 32 on the attachment to the subpoena. Dkt.
10 Nos. 12 at 9; 6 at 36-37. Plaintiff and Earthbound contend that the limited subpoena should
11 still be quashed or narrowed for the reasons presented in their motions. See Dkt. Nos. 13,
12 14.
This case has been referred for discovery to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt.

13

14 No. 4. On July 31, 2013, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff’s and Earthbound’s motions
15 to quash. For the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND
16 DENIES IN PART the motions to quash, as follows:
17

1. By August 14, 2013, Earthbound must produce to defendants:

18

(A) The external job posting(s) for the job for which plaintiff applied at Earthbound;

19 and
20

(B) Plaintiff’s employment application and resume provided to Earthbound, as well as

21 any cover letter(s) to such application and resume.
22

The discovery permitted in this order is limited to the time period from January 1,

23 2011 to the present.
24

In their opposition, defendants asserted that they have no alternative means to obtain

25 the employment information sought in the subpoena because plaintiff has refused to
26 produce documents in response to defendants’ documents requests based on the attorney27 client privilege. Dkt. No. 12 at 14. At the hearing, defendants’ counsel was unable to point
28 to any withheld documents, and plaintiff’s counsel represented that no documents have been
Case No. 13-mc-80130 RS (NC)
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO QUASH
DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENA

2

d
cordingly, th Court do not need to rule on the applica
he
oes
d
n
ability
1 withheld on such a basis. Acc
ttorney-client privilege at this tim
e
me.
2 of the at

3

2. The remai
inder of the subpoena is quashed because it i irrelevant overly broad,
e
i
is
t,

b
e,
c
l
ial
tion, and of
f
4 unduly burdensome seeks disclosure of confidential commerci informat
ment
ds
pect
ch
nts’
oes
weigh plaint
tiff’s
5 employm record with resp to whic defendan need do not outw
e
(3)(A)(iii)-( (provid
(iv)
ding that a c
court must q
quash
6 privacy rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(
fy
ena
uires disclo
osure of priv
vileged or o
other protec matter, if no
cted
,
7 or modif a subpoe that requ
on
undue burd
den); 45(c)(3
3)(B)(i)
8 exceptio or waiver applies, or subjects a person to u
ourt
uash
dify
oena that re
equires disclosing a tra
ade
9 (providing that a co may qu or mod a subpo
r
fidential res
search, deve
elopment, o commerc informa
or
cial
ation); see a
also
10 secret or other conf
0
er
.,
v-5806 JSW (JL), 2011 WL 1344195, at *2-3 (N.D.
W
1
3
11 Bickley v. Schneide Nat., Inc. No. 08-cv
1
r.
(
ng
oyee’s right to privacy in personne records a
el
and
12 Cal. Apr 8, 2011) (recognizin an emplo
2
ment
mation in qu
uashing def
fendant’s su
ubpoenas of plaintiffs’ employmen
f
nt
13 employm inform
3
er
rs);
eservices Le
ending, LLC No. 11-c
C,
cv-0922
14 records from forme employer Buchanan v. Home
4
D),
L
,
D.
(quashing d
defendants’
15 L (MDD 2011 WL 6778472, at *2 (S.D Cal. Dec. 22, 2011) (
5
na
t
s
mployment r
records of p
plaintiff).
16 subpoen to plaintiff’s current employer seeking em
6

17
7

Any party may object to this nondi
A
m
o
ispositive p
pretrial orde within 14 days of the filing
er
4

t
S
18 date of this order. See Civ. L.R. 72-2.
8

19
9

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

20
0

Date: August 1, 2013
t

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 13-mc-801 RS (NC)
130
)
ORDER RE: MOTIO
R
ONS TO QU
UASH
DEFEND
DANTS’ SU
UBPOENA

3