Lash v. Starr et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 13 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 4/19/2017. (fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

TROY STARR; TANA STARR; and
BRANDON STARR,

Case No.: 16CV2064-L(JMA)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
[DOC. NO. 79]

13
14
15

v.
CHRISTOPHER LASH,
Defendant.

16
17

Pursuant to the undersigned’s Chambers Rules, on March 21, 2017, the

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute that arises
from Plaintiffs Troy and Tana Starr’s assertions of a right to privacy with respect
to four subpoenas Defendant Christopher Lash served on CIF San Diego, CIF
Los Angeles and Taft High School, in Woodland Hills, California. [Doc. No. 79.]
I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises from a verbal altercation that took place on October 15,

2015, between Mr. Starr and Mr. Lash, at Mr. and Ms. Starr’s residence. Prior to,
and at the time of, the altercation, Mr. Starr was employed as the football coach
for Helix High School, in La Mesa, California. Mr. Lash was a parent volunteer
who served as an assistant coach for the team. Mr. Starr and Mr. Lash’s

1
16CV2064-L(JMA)

1

relationship was cordial at times, and rocky at others, with the two occasionally

2

disagreeing about the other’s tactics and treatment of team members. In October

3

2015, Mr. Lash accused Mr. Starr of a CIF rule violation in which Mr. Lash

4

believed he had unintentionally involved himself. The tension between the two

5

culminated on October 15, 2015, when Mr. Lash went to the Starr residence to

6

confront Mr. Starr. The two had a brief but heated conversation in front of the

7

home, during which Mr. Lash is alleged to have verbally threatened physical

8

harm to Mr. Starr. Ms. Starr, who at the time was a teacher at Helix High School,

9

was inside the home and overheard, but did not see, the dispute. Plaintiffs

10

contend this verbal altercation caused severe emotional distress to both Mr. and

11

Ms. Starr, necessitating her hospitalization and admission to a psychiatric unit on

12

October 23, 2015, and both Mr. and Ms. Starr’s resignation from their positions

13

with Helix High School. The Starrs contend he can no longer coach football and

14

she can no longer teach due to the severe emotional distress inflicted by Mr.

15

Lash.

16

Mr. Lash’s defense, on the other hand, is that Mr. Starr’s resignation was

17

not caused by the verbal altercation. Mr. Starr, he contends, had a troubled

18

pattern of conduct that caused him to be the subject of investigations by CIF San

19

Diego with respect to his time at Helix High School, and also by CIF Los Angeles,

20

with respect to Mr. Starr’s prior employment as a football coach at Taft High

21

School from 1992 to 2007. Mr. Lash posits Mr. Starr’s voluntary mid-season

22

resignation from Helix High School for the stated reason of wanting to spend

23

more time with his family is questionable, and was more likely intended to

24

forestall any further CIF investigation and possibly disciplinary action against the

25

Helix High School football program. Mr. Lash further contends Mr. Starr’s

26

voluntary resignation from Taft High School, which was subjected to discipline by

27

CIF Los Angeles during Mr. Starr’s tenure there, may have also been related to

28

misconduct and rule violations by Mr. Starr, as opposed to his stated reason of
2
16CV2064-L(JMA)

1
2
3

wanting to spend time with family.
II.

JURISDICTION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3) specifically directs motions to quash or modify a

4

subpoena must be filed in the court for the district where compliance is required.

5

CIF Los Angeles is located in Granada Hills, California, and Taft High School is

6

located in Los Angeles, California, so jurisdiction over a motion related to the

7

three subpoenas that were served on these entities properly lies with the Central

8

District of California unless transferred to this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

45(f), which has not occurred here. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D), however,

10

upon a showing of good cause, the Court may issue a protective order to limit the

11

scope of discovery to certain matters in order to protect the party from

12

"annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense."

13

Although the Court is loath to consider issues that may impinge on another

14

court’s jurisdiction, because this dispute is limited to the parties, both of whom

15

have sought this Court’s intervention in the matter, and in the interest of

16

economy, the Court will consider the Starrs’ arguments with regard to these three

17

subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D). The Court’s determination under

18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D) regarding whether the Starrs have demonstrated good

19

cause for the Court to prohibit discovery of CIF Los Angeles and Taft High

20

School records is without prejudice to any objections these third-parties may

21

independently have with respect to the subpoenas.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS RE: PRIVACY & RELEVANCY

22

III.

23

Under federal law, discovery is purposefully broad. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

24

Each party generally has the right to discover “any nonprivileged matter that is

25

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the

26

case.” Id. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible at

27

trial in order to be discoverable. Id. Because the Starrs contend their

28

employment records are protected by a constitutional right to privacy under
3
16CV2064-L(JMA)

1

California law, additional factors come into play. Board of Trustees v. Superior

2

Court, 119 Cal. App. 3d. 516 (1981). Mr. Lash, they argue, must do more than

3

satisfy the general relevancy standard, and instead must establish the

4

information sought is “directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair

5

resolution of the case.” citing Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 833, 842

6

(1987).

7

Because this is a diversity jurisdiction case, assertions based on privacy

8

rights are determined under applicable California state law. Fed. R. Ev. 501;

9

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

10

the California Constitution, an individual’s right to privacy is inalienable. Cal.

11

Const. art. I, §1. The right to privacy is not absolute, however, but rather a right

12

subject to invasion where a compelling public interest is involved. Hill v. Nat’l

13

Collegiate Athletic Ass’n., 7 Cal. 4th 1, 37-38 (1994); See also Ragge v.

14

MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 1995). When evidence is

15

particularly important to a claim or defense, a party’s right to discovery of that

16

evidence is more likely to outweigh competing privacy claims. Denari v. Superior

17

Ct. (Kern County), 215 Cal. App. 3d 1488, 1501 (1989).

18

A. Taft High School Employment Records

19

The Starrs argue under California state law, a party’s private employment

20

records are available only upon a showing the records are directly relevant and

21

that the right to privacy is outweighed by a compelling need for the records, citing

22

Board of Trustees, 119 Cal. App. 3d. 516. In Board of Trustees, the personnel

23

records sought were those of a non-party to the case and were found to be not

24

discoverable. Id. at 524. In this case, however, the records sought are those of

25

the plaintiffs. As opposed to the situation involving non-parties, who do not

26

voluntarily involve themselves in litigation and whose employment records are

27

not at issue, the Starrs’ own employment records, both current and former, do

28

have a bearing on the claims and defenses asserted in this lawsuit.
4
16CV2064-L(JMA)

1

In determining whether a plaintiff has waived the right of privacy by bringing

2

suit, the California Supreme Court has noted that although there may be an

3

implicit partial waiver, the scope of such waiver must be narrowly, rather than

4

expansively, construed so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from

5

instituting lawsuits by fear of exposure of private activities. Davis v. Superior

6

Court (Kern County), 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1014 (1992) citing Vinson, 43 Cal.3d

7

at 842. An implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only

8

discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair

9

resolution of the lawsuit. There must be a compelling and opposing state interest

10

in justifying the discovery. Even when discovery of private information is found

11

directly relevant to the issues of the ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically

12

allowed. There must be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for

13

discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. The scope of any disclosure

14

must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed

15

by the least intrusive manner. Id.
1. Mr. Starr’s Personnel Records

16
17

The Court is persuaded of the direct relevance of Mr. Starr’s personnel

18

records from Taft High School. Mr. Starr seeks to recover damages for lost

19

income, contending he can no longer coach football due to Mr. Lash’s conduct.

20

The Taft High School personnel records are relevant to determine the scope and

21

nature of Mr. Starr’s prior employment, his performance, including whether there

22

were complaints about it, and why Mr. Starr stopped coaching at that school.

23

Furthermore, Mr. Lash informs the Court that the Taft High School football

24

program was subjected to discipline as a result of misconduct and rule violations

25

by Mr. Starr. His personnel file may contain information that could demonstrate a

26

pattern and history of improper conduct, akin to the behavior Mr. Lash claims he

27

witnessed and which precipitated the complaints about Mr. Starr to CIF San

28

Diego.
5
16CV2064-L(JMA)

2. Ms. Starr’s Personnel Records

1
2

Like her husband, Ms. Starr also alleges she is unable to work due to Mr.

3

Lash’s conduct. Similarly, her personnel records from Taft High School are

4

directly relevant to determine the scope and nature of her prior employment, as

5

well as her performance.

6

3. Compelling Need

7

Discovery of the Starrs’ personnel records with Taft High School is

8

essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit, and Mr. Lash’s need thereof is

9

compelling, as this information is unlikely to be available from any other source.

10

Although the two subpoenas to Taft High School request the Starrs’ employment

11

records from June 1, 1992 through December 31, 2007, Mr. Lash has since

12

agreed to narrow the time period for the requested documents to five years.1

13

Limiting production of the Starrs’ prior employment records to the five-year period

14

preceding their departure from Taft High School sufficiently narrows the scope of

15

disclosure. The Starrs’ privacy interests, which are not absolute under California

16

law, can be adequately protected by means of a protective order. The Court,

17

therefore, finds the Starrs have not demonstrated good cause for the Court to

18

restrict discovery of these records.

19

B. CIF San Diego and CIF Los Angeles Records

20

The documents requested of CIF San Diego and CIF Los Angeles relate to

21

any investigations, hearings, discipline or any charges or complaints of any

22

violation by Mr. Starr of any CIF rule, regulation, code or requirement. These are

23

not “employment records,” which is defined by Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1985.6 as

24

records “pertaining to the employment of any employee maintained by the

25
26
27
28

1

Mr. Lash describes the five-year period as 2002-2007, which is actually a six-year time period The Court,
therefore, construes Mr. Lash’s narrowing of his requests for the Starrs’ Taft High School personnel records to
apply to January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007, which is the most recent five-year time period covered by the
subpoenas.
6
16CV2064-L(JMA)

1

current or former employer of the employee, or by any labor organization that has

2

represented or currently represents the employee.” Mr. Starr was not employed

3

by either CIF San Diego or CIF Los Angeles and neither entity is a labor

4

organization that represented him. Mr. Starr, thus, does not have a constitutional

5

right to privacy as to these documents and their discoverability is subject to the

6

general relevancy standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

7

1. CIF San Diego Records

8
9

Mr. Starr seeks lost income, contending he is unable to work as a football
coach because of Mr. Lash’s statements to him. Discovery regarding whether

10

other circumstances, i.e., complaints to or investigations by CIF San Diego, may

11

have been a contributing factor to Mr. Starr’s voluntary resignation is clearly

12

relevant to the defenses asserted by Mr. Lash, and is proportional to the needs of

13

the case.

14

2. CIF Los Angeles Records
The CIF Los Angeles records are relevant for reasons similar to why Mr.

15
16

Starr’s Taft High School records are relevant.2 As discussed above in relation to

17

his employment records, Mr. Lash contends Mr. Starr has a history of CIF

18

regulation violations and resulting investigations and disciplinary actions. The CIF

19

records from his tenure as football coach at Taft High School are, thus, relevant

20

and discoverable in order for Mr. Lash to determine whether a pattern of conduct

21

exists with regard to Mr. Starr’s coaching practices and subsequent resignations.

22

Although the CIF San Diego and Los Angeles records are not subject to the

23

privacy protections afforded employment records, and Mr. Lash, therefore, need

24

not demonstrate he has a compelling interest in these records, a compelling

25

need does exist. Discovery of the CIF records is essential to the fair resolution of

26
27
28

Like the two subpoenas to Taft High School, Mr. Lash’s subpoena to CIF Los Angeles also requests records
from June 1, 1992 through December 31, 2007, however, Mr. Lash has since agreed to narrow the time period for
the requested documents to the same five-year period that pertains to the Taft High School personnel records.
2

7
16CV2064-L(JMA)

1

the lawsuit, and Mr. Lash’s need thereof is compelling, as this information is

2

directly relevant to the claims and defenses and is unlikely to be available from

3

any other source. Furthermore, Mr. Starr can be adequately protected from

4

dissemination of these records to outside parties, by means of a protective order.

5

The Court, therefore, finds Mr. Starr has not demonstrated good cause for the

6

Court to restrict discovery of the CIF San Diego or CIF Los Angeles records.

7

IV.

8

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Mr. and Mrs. Starr have not

9

CONCLUSION

demonstrated good cause to prohibit Mr. Lash from subpoenaing the CIF San

10

Diego records from June 1, 2008 to December 31, 2015, or the Starrs’

11

employment records from Taft High School or the CIF Los Angeles records for

12

the time period January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007. The parties are to

13

promptly meet and confer and prepare a joint motion for a proposed protective

14

order.

15

Dated: April 19, 2017

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
16CV2064-L(JMA)