Grobee v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 22

ORDER Regarding Joint Motion For Determination of Discovery Dispute; Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 21 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 1/17/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF )
AMERICA, a Tennessee Corporation )
)
dba CCA, DOES 1-2o, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
DAN GROBEE, an individual,

Case No. 13cv1060-GPC (DHB)
ORDER REGARDING JOINT
MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
[ECF No. 21]

17
18

On December 27, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of

19

Discovery Dispute. (ECF No. 21.) The parties’ dispute concerns whether Defendant should

20

be required to produce personnel files for several of its employees who are not parties to this

21

action. After reviewing the Joint Motion, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to

22

compel, as outlined below.

23

I. BACKGROUND

24

On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in San Diego Superior Court alleging

25

claims for wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, and several violations of

26

California’s labor laws. Thereafter, the case was removed to federal court. (ECF No. 1.)

27

Plaintiff claims he was wrongfully terminated due to his age and physical disabilities.

28

Defendant asserts Plaintiff was terminated following an investigation into a complaint of
13cv1060-GPC (DHB)

1

sexual harassment, that uncovered a pattern of inappropriate conduct by Plaintiff towards

2

female employees. Plaintiff contends that the sexual harassment claims were only a pretext

3

for his termination.

4

Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents on Defendant, seeking

5

among other things, the personnel files for nine of Defendant’s employees who gave witness

6

statements during the investigation of the sexual harassment complaint. (ECF No. 21-2 at

7

27-31, Requests Numbers 35-43.) Defendant objected to the requests on grounds that they

8

are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and call for information that is irrelevant, protected

9

by the right to privacy, and protected by the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work

10

product doctrine.1 (Id.) On November 22, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ joint request

11

to extend time to file a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute concerning the

12

disputed document requests. (ECF No. 18.) After exhausting their efforts to resolve the

13

dispute informally, the parties filed the instant motion on December 27, 2013.

14

Plaintiff requests the Court to compel Defendant to produce all documents responsive

15

to Requests Numbers 35 through 43. Alternatively, Plaintiff proposes the Court should

16

compel production, but order any information regarding the employees’ health issues, bank

17

accounts, or social security information be redacted from the responsive documents.

18

Plaintiff argues the personnel files are relevant to test the credibility of the witnesses, to

19

uncover the witnesses’ potential bias against Plaintiff, and to reveal any relationships

20

between the witnesses. Plaintiff states the personnel files may also lead to the names of other

21

potential witnesses. Defendant urges the Court to decline to order production of the files.

22

Defendant contends that the employee personnel files are protected by the constitutional

23

right of privacy and Plaintiff has not shown a compelling need for the personnel files, or

24

shown that the information could not be obtained through less intrusive means.
II. DISCUSSION

25
26
27

1

It appears Defendant has abandoned its objections regarding overbreadth, burden,
and the attorney client privilege/attorney work product doctrine. In the instant motion,
28
Defendant has only argued that the documents are protected by the constitutional right of
privacy. (See ECF No. 21 at 9-12.)
2

13cv1060-GPC (DHB)

1

1.

Legal Standard

2

Under Rule 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery of “any non privileged matter that

3

is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information

4

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to

5

the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. However, the Court must limit discovery if it

6

determines that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

7

benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources,

8

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in

9

resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “The party who resists discovery has

10

the burden to show discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying,

11

explaining, and supporting its objections.” Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 375, 378

12

(C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975);

13

Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 233 F.R.D. 573, 575 (C.D. Cal. 2005)).

14

Privacy is a valid objection that can be raised in response to discovery requests.

15

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35, n. 21 (1984). Because jurisdiction in this

16

action is based upon diversity, state law governs Defendant’s privacy claims. Fed. R. Evid.

17

501; Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Under

18

California law, personnel records of employees are protected by California’s constitutional

19

right of privacy. Cal. Const., art. I, § 1; El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court,

20

190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987); Board of Trustees v. Superior Court, 119

21

Cal.App.3d 516, 525-26 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). However, “[t]he constitutional right of

22

privacy is ‘not absolute,’ it may be abridged when, but only when, there is a ‘compelling’

23

and opposing state interest.” Board of Trustees, 119 Cal.App.3d at 525.

24

A finding of relevancy, alone, is not enough to justify compelled disclosure of private

25

information. Board of Trustees, 119 Cal.App.3d at 525. When private information, such as

26

personnel files, is shown to be relevant, the court must then balance the need for the

27

discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. Id.; Harding Lawson Assoc. v. Superior

28

Court, 10 Cal.App.4th 7,10 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). “[T]he balance will favor privacy for
3

13cv1060-GPC (DHB)

1

confidential information in third party personnel files unless the litigant can show a

2

compelling need for the particular documents and that the information cannot reasonably be

3

obtained through depositions or from nonconfidential sources.” Harding Lawson Assoc., 10

4

Cal. App.4th at 10. Even if the balance weighs in favor of disclosure, “the scope of

5

disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed.” Id.

6

2.

Requests for Production Numbers 35 Through 43

7

Here, the Court finds that Requests Numbers 35 through 43 seek information that may

8

be relevant to witness credibility. See Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine, Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283

9

(C.D. Cal. 1998) (stating that Rule 26 “permits the discovery of information which may

10

simply relate to the credibility of a witnesses or other evidence in the case”). However,

11

because relevance alone is not a sufficient basis invade a non-party’s privacy rights, the

12

Court must consider whether Plaintiff has shown a compelling need for the information. The

13

Court concludes that he has not. Plaintiff’s arguments that the personnel files may contain

14

information that will show witness bias or be useful to test credibility are speculative. See

15

Board of Trustees, 119 Cal.App.3d at 525 (stating inquiry into one’s private affairs will not

16

be allowed simply because it might lead to relevant evidence). In addition, the Court has

17

reviewed the partial transcript from Theresa Castrejon’s deposition and finds that it does not

18

justify Plaintiff’s request for the personnel files. Therefore, because disclosure of the

19

personnel files would invade the third party employees’ right to privacy under the California

20

Constitution, and because the information is sought to pursue a speculative argument, the

21

Court believes that the employees’ interest in maintaining the privacy of these records

22

outweighs Plaintiff’s need for them. See Harding Lawson Associates, 10 Cal.App.4th at 10

23

(finding Plaintiff failed to show a compelling need for confidential documents in third party

24

personnel files).

25

Moreover, Plaintiff is not left without alternative, less intrusive means to inquire into

26

the credibility or potential bias of the third party employees. Plaintiff has the ability to

27

depose the employees who gave witness statements during the sexual harassment

28

4

13cv1060-GPC (DHB)

1

investigation.2 Indeed, Plaintiff has already deposed at least one of the witnesses, Theresa

2

Castrejon, and has plans to depose Warden Lawrence, who handled the investigation. (See

3

ECF No. 21 at 6; 21-2 at 39-48.) Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to compel

4

Defendant to produce the personnel files.
III. CONCLUSION

5
6

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: January 17, 2014

9

DAVID H. BARTICK
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

If Plaintiff determines that he needs to take more than 10 depositions, and the parties are unable
to reach a stipulation, the Court is willing to entertain a motion to expand the number of depositions
allowed.
5

13cv1060-GPC (DHB)