Mahoney v. La Quinta Management Services, LLC et al

Filing 28

ORDER Following Telephonic Discovery Conference. Telephonic Discovery Conferenceheld 1/7/2015. On or before January 16, 2015, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the spreadsheet reflecting cash accepted at check-in, with all of the employees's names unredacted. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 1/14/2015. (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
17

HELENE R. MAHONEY,
v.

Plaintiff,

LA QUINTA MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 14-CV-0878-GPC (WVG)
ORDER FOLLOWING
TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY
CONFERENCE

18
19

I. BACKGROUND

20

On December 9, 2014, counsel for both parties informed the Court of a discovery

21

dispute involving six of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”). The

22

Court held a telephonic Discovery Conference on December 11, 2014. On December 17,

23

2014, the Court issued an Order Following Telephonic Discovery Conference. (Doc. No.

24

26.) In its Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff sought information from Defendant regarding

25

whether employees other than Plaintiff accepted cash from customers after Defendant’s no

26

cash policy was instituted in 2013. Id. at 4. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request to compel

27

Defendant to produce responsive documents, and ordered Defendant to produce the actual

28

data of customers who secured a room using cash as the method of payment from 2013
1

14CV0878

1

through the present. Id. The Court ordered that Defendant was not to simply provide a

2

summary of the data. Id.

3

On January 7, 2015, counsel for both parties notified the Court of a discovery dispute

4

involving the document produced by Defendant in response to the Court’s December 17,

5

2014, Order, related to the no cash policy. Also on January 7, 2015, the Court held another

6

telephonic Discovery Conference. Ms. Alreen Haeggquist participated on behalf of Plaintiff,

7

and Mr. Frank Tobin participated on behalf of Defendant. During the Conference, the parties

8

explained that Defendant produced a spreadsheet that listed other employees who accepted

9

cash at check-in, but Defendant had redacted the employees’ names due to privacy concerns.

10

Defendant argued that the spreadsheet implicates employee performance, and noted that

11

actual names are subject to employee privacy concerns. Defendant claimed that it has a duty

12

to protect the privacy interests of the employees. Plaintiff argued that the information

13

reflected in Defendant’s spreadsheet goes to the heart of the case because Plaintiff was

14

allegedly fired for accepting cash at check-in.

15

The Court tentatively ruled that Defendant shall unredact the employees’ names in the

16

spreadsheet.

17

employees’ names should remain redacted. Plaintiff argued that the cases cited by Defendant

18

are inapplicable, and do not provide a blanket rule that the employees’ names have to be

19

redacted. The Court informed the parties that it would review the three cases cited by

20

Defendant and then provide a final ruling on the discovery dispute.

21

However, Defendant cited three cases to support its position that the

II. CASES CITED BY DEFENDANT

22

Defendant cited Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2011),

23

Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652-653 (2011), and

24

Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.4th 7, 10 (1992) to support its

25

assertion that there is a protected privacy interest in the employees’ names. The Court has

26

reviewed these cases and determines that they do not support Defendant’s argument that the

27

employees’ names must be redacted.

28
2

14CV0878

1

In Nielsen Media Research, Inc., the Ninth Circuit did not specifically discuss privacy

2

rights, redaction of individual names, or identification of employees. Nielsen Media

3

Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108. Although the Ninth Circuit did refer to the other employees

4

in this case by identification numbers rather than by names, the only mention of the

5

identification issue is in the single sentence, “Nielsen has identified the employees by

6

number rather than by name.” Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d at 1113. The Court

7

did not discuss any privacy concerns in revealing the names, and no inference can be drawn

8

that the Court was concerned with privacy issues from the mere fact that employee

9

identification numbers were used rather than names.

10

In Life Technologies Corp., the plaintiff sought far more information than the

11

employees’ names. Life Technologies Corp., 197 Cal.App.4th at 647-648. While the

12

plaintiff did seek the names of all employees terminated during a two-year period, it also

13

requested the department each employee worked for when terminated, the date of

14

termination, the age of each at termination, the reason for termination, whether severance

15

benefits were offered, whether offered severance benefits were accepted, a description of any

16

offered severance benefits, a detailed explanation of reasons for any failure to offer

17

severance benefits, the identity, including name, address, and telephone number, of certain

18

employees, and whether the terminated employees were former employees of certain

19

companies. Id. The court determined that the discovery requests effectively sought the

20

disclosure of confidential personnel records of non-witness third parties, and that the public

21

interest in preserving confidential, personnel information generally outweighs a private

22

litigant’s interest in obtaining that information. Id. at 652. The court concluded by stating

23

that the discovery requests were in some respects overbroad and in other respects sought

24

private and personal information without a sufficient showing of compelling need. Id. at

25

654.

26

In Harding Lawson Associates, the trial court ordered the defendant employer to

27

produce personnel records and files of employees other than the plaintiff. Harding Lawson

28

Associates, 10 Cal.App.4th at 10. The California Court of Appeal directed the trial court to
3

14CV0878

1

vacate its order insofar as it required disclosure of material in the personnel files of

2

employees other than the plaintiff. Id. It held that the trial court’s order concerning third

3

party personnel files was overbroad and unjustified because the plaintiff had failed to show

4

a compelling need for particular confidential documents in the files, or that the information

5

could not be obtained through other sources. Id. The court concluded that the order

6

unjustifiably intruded into privacy rights of employees. Id.
III. RULING

7
8

The Court does not find the cases described above to be persuasive, as the requesting

9

party in both Life Technologies Corp. and Harding Lawson Associates were seeking

10

information beyond the individuals’ names, and also sought information from the personnel

11

files of employees other than the plaintiff, and the Nielsen Media Research, Inc. court did

12

not discuss privacy concerns. Life Technologies Corp., 197 Cal.App.4th at 652-653;

13

Harding Lawson Associates, 10 Cal.App.4th at 10; Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d

14

1108. Here, Plaintiff is not seeking any information from the employees’ personnel files,

15

nor is Plaintiff seeking the employees’ contact information. The Court does not find that

16

there is a privacy interest that is being compromised in producing the employees’ names on

17

the spreadsheet in this case. As noted during the Discovery Conference, these employees

18

disclosed their names to the public by wearing name tags during check-in, and the Court has

19

not been presented with any evidence that producing their names in this context would

20

constitute a violation of their privacy interests. Moreover, a Protective Order is in place

21

which places restrictions on the use of this information, providing reasonable security that

22

the employees’ names will be appropriately safeguarded. Therefore, the Court hereby

23

ORDERS Defendant to unredact the employees’ names on the spreadsheet at issue.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
4

14CV0878

1

On or before January 16, 2015, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the spreadsheet

2

reflecting cash accepted at check-in, with all of the employees’s names unredacted.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: January 14, 2015

5

Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

14CV0878