Greenburg v. Red Robin International, Inc et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion for Protective Order by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

GARY GREENBURG,

CASE NO. C17-6052 BHS
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC,
and KRISTA COLEMAN,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
QUASH

11
Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Gary Greenburg’s (“Greenburg”)
motion for protective order to quash subpoenas duces tecum (Dkt. 10). The Court has
considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the
remainder of the file and hereby grants in part and denies in part the motion for the
reasons stated herein.

18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2018, Greenburg filed a complaint against Defendants Red

20

Robin International, Inc. (“Red Robin”) and Krista Coleman for retaliation, wrongful

21

discharge, and failure to pay for wage and rest breaks. Dkt. 1.

22

ORDER - 1

1

On March 29, 2018, Red Robin informed Greenburg of its intent to serve

2

subpoenas duces tecum on Greenburg’s former employers requesting any and all

3

documents relating to Greenburg’s employment. Dkt. 14 at 34–35. Specifically, Red

4

Robin intends to seek documents regarding payroll/income and compensation records,

5

employment applications, employment history, job description(s), employee evaluations

6

and performance appraisals, attendance records, and disciplinary records, including any

7

documentation relating to counseling or discipline. See, e.g., Dkt. 14 at 60. Red Robin

8

asserts that Greenburg objected only to Red Robin seeking payroll/income and

9

compensation records. Dkt. 14 at 64–65 (email written by Greenburg’s counsel

10

summarizing meet and confer).

11

On April 11, 2018, Greenburg filed the instant motion requesting that the Court

12

quash the subpoenas in total. Dkt. 10. On April 18, 2018, Red Robin responded. Dkt.

13

13. On April 15, 2018, Greenburg replied. Dkt. 15.

14
15

II. DISCUSSION
A.

Meet and Confer

16

Every discovery motion must contain a certification that the parties met and

17

conferred regarding the dispute. LCR 37(a)(1). Relying on Greenburg’s counsel’s email,

18

Red Robin argues that Greenburg failed to meet and confer on all issues except the

19

request for payroll and income records. Dkt. 13 at 7. Greenburg counters that, while the

20

email did not specifically address all of the parties’ disagreements, Greenburg objected to

21

and the parties discussed each category of documents requested by Red Robin. Dkt. 15 at

22

2–3. Greenburg’s counsel has submitted a declaration to support this position. Dkt. 16.

ORDER - 2

1

The Court declines to engage in fact finding inquiry on this issue and will accept

2

counsel’s declaration as sufficient evidence that the parties met and conferred on all

3

issues presented.

4

B.

Merits

5

The parties essentially dispute the relevance of information from Greenburg’s past

6

and subsequent employers. “Generally, employment records from separate employers are

7

not discoverable due to their highly private nature absent a specific showing by a

8

defendant as to their relevance.” Paananen v. Cellco P’ship, C08-1042 RSM, 2009 WL

9

2057048, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2009) (citing Woods v. Fresenius Med. Care Group

10

of N.A., 2008 WL 151836, *1 (S.D.Ind. Jan.16, 2008); Chamberlain v. Farmington Sav.

11

Bank, 2007 WL 2786421, *1 (D.Conn. 2007)).

12

In this case, Red Robin fails to make a specific showing of relevance as to the

13

majority of information requested. For example, Red Robin asserts that these records

14

“may . . . reveal that [Greenburg] has a pattern of asserting frivolous claims of

15

discrimination.” Dkt. 13 at 9. Red Robin, however, has failed to make any specific

16

showing that Greenburg has filed any other discrimination complaint against any other

17

employer. The Court declines to allow Red Robin’s fishing expedition into Greenburg’s

18

private records based on a hypothetical that can be determined with a simple request for

19

admission. If Greenburg admits that he has filed prior complaints, either formal or

20
21
22

ORDER - 3

1

informal, then Red Robin has evidence to make the required showing. 1 In the absence of

2

such evidence, Red Robin has failed to meet its burden on the majority of its requests.

3

On the other hand, Greenburg has opened the door on emotional distress issues. In

4

Abu v. Piramco Sea-Tac Inc., C08-1167RSL, 2009 WL 279036 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 5,

5

2009), “Plaintiff contend[ed] that as a result of defendant’s discriminatory treatment, she

6

suffered emotional distress, including a reduced ability to concentrate.” Id. at *2. The

7

Court concluded that “plaintiff’s subsequent attendance and ability to concentrate (as

8

reflected in her job performance) is relevant.” Id. Applied to this case, Greenburg

9

contends that Greenburg subsequently worked at Taco Time and BJ’s restaurant, but

10

shortly ended both jobs because of mental health issues resulting from Red Robin’s

11

treatment and termination of Greenburg. Dkt. 10 at 2–3. Similar to Abu, the Court

12

concludes that attendance records as well as disciplinary records from these two

13

employers are relevant to Greenburg’s emotional distress claim. Accordingly, the Court

14

concludes that Red Robin is entitled to this information because Red Robin has shown

15

that this limited information is relevant to actual issues in this case.

16

Although the Court quashes the subpoenas as to the majority of materials

17

requested, nothing in this order precludes Red Robin from subsequently requesting

18

relevant information based on a showing of relevance to actual issues in this case.

19
20
1

21
22

Greenburg appears to concede that he has made prior discrimination complaints to
employers. Dkt. 15 at 7. The concession, however, is made in Greenburg’s reply and requires
further investigation by Red Robin to confirm that such complaints were actually made before
issuing subpoenas on third party employers.

ORDER - 4

1
2
3
4

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Greenburg’s motion to quash subpoenas
duces tecum (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated herein.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2018.

A

5
6

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 5