Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02372/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02372-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e-2sx Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

1 

16-CV-2372-CAB(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PC IRON, INC. d/b/a PACIFIC COAST 

IRON, INC., 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 16-CV-2372-CAB(WVG) 

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY 

CONFERENCE (RE: EDD 

SUBPOENA DISPUTE) 

The Court convened a telephonic discovery conference on October 10, 2017 and 

heard argument on a dispute over documents produced by the California Employment 

Development Department (“EDD”) to Plaintiff. The parties then filed briefing on October 

24 and 25, 2017. Having heard argument and considered the parties’ written submissions, 

the Court rules as set forth below. 

This dispute centers around a document subpoena Plaintiff issued to non-party EDD 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Plaintiff sought four categories of 

documents related to “quarterly earnings statements and wage reports” from 2008 through 

the present for Defendant and the “quarterly earnings statements and wage reports” for 

Defendant’s employees. Rather than formally serve the EDD, Plaintiff faxed the subpoena 

Case 3:16-cv-02372-CAB-WVG Document 35 Filed 12/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

16-CV-2372-CAB(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

under an agreement between the two entities. Plaintiff then mail-served the subpoena to 

Defendant. The EDD responded and produced the subpoenaed documents to Plaintiff 

much more quickly than anyone had expected and well before the production deadline. 

Plaintiff then produced the documents to both Defendant and Intervener. The parties 

dispute whether the documents are discoverable and whether they are privileged. The 

parties originally also disputed whether Plaintiff complied with Rule 45’s notice provision 

that permits Defendant to challenge a subpoena, but Plaintiff has since admitted error. 

Although Plaintiff admits error, the Court finds it appropriate to address the failure 

to comply with a significant procedural safeguard that allows Defendant to challenge a 

subpoena. Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 45(a)(4)’s mandate that a document 

subpoena “be served on each party” before it is served on a responding non-party. During 

the discovery conference, Plaintiff’s counsel incredibly argued that since Plaintiff faxed 

the subpoena to the EDD pursuant to the entities’ pre-existing arrangement, the subpoena 

was not technically “served” as Rule 5 prescribes—the implication being that Rule 

45(a)(4)’s pre-service notice provision was not triggered here. The Court is flabbergasted 

that Plaintiff would make such a contrived argument which clearly ignores the spirit and 

purpose of Rule 45(a)(4)’s notice requirement. If a party seeks to circumvent this rather 

important procedural safeguard and deprive an opposing party of the opportunity to 

challenge a subpoena, the Court would view such conduct quite dimly. Plaintiff should 

have admitted error during the discovery conference. However, Plaintiff appears to have 

retracted its original position in its supplemental briefing and now contends the lack of preservice notice was a mistake and not made with ill intent. Regardless, it is undisputed that 

Plaintiff failed to comply with the advance notice requirement. That being the case, 

however, Defendant now challenges the subpoena, and the documents produced pursuant 

to that subpoena have been ordered sequestered under Rule 45(e)(2)(b) until resolution of 

any dispute over discoverability and any claim of privilege. 

 As a general matter, Plaintiff has demonstrated the discoverability of the EDD 

documents. Defendant claims it did not terminate Intervenor Elsa Perez and instead 

Case 3:16-cv-02372-CAB-WVG Document 35 Filed 12/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

16-CV-2372-CAB(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contends she was laid off. (Doc. No. 6 at ¶ 27.) Before litigation, Defendant took the 

position that Perez’s position had been eliminated in 2011 due to a lack of work that 

obviated the need for a full-time receptionist or office assistant. (Doc. No. 31-3 at 2.) 

Plaintiff contends the subpoenaed wage records directly relate to this defense because they 

show that from 2011 to 2012 “there was an increase in the total amount of employees’ 

wages . . . while the number of employees remained fairly consistent. Moreover, even 

though the total wages were typically lower during the first quarter for years 2008, 2009, 

and 2010 than other quarters, Elsa Perez was not subjected to lay-off during these years in 

which she was not pregnant.” (Doc. No. 31-1 at ¶ 34.) As a result, Plaintiff contends the 

disputed documents “are highly relevant to show that Perez was discharged during 

December 2011 based on her pregnancy and that Defendant’s alleged reason for 

discharging Perez is pretextual.” (Doc. No. 31 at 4.) The Court is persuaded and finds that 

the EDD documents are relevant, directly related to a defense theory, are proportional to 

the needs of the case, and are thus properly discoverable subject to resolution of any 

privilege claims. 

 Defendant has asserted claims of privacy privilege on behalf of the non-parties listed 

in the EDD documents. The documents the EDD produced contain the employees’ names, 

corresponding Social Security numbers, and data related to their wages. Such detailed 

financial information is covered by each named individual’s qualified right to privacy 

under California law. See Dale Evans Parkway 2012 v. Nat’l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 

ED CV15-979-JGB(SPx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187094, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 

2016). However, this does not automatically propel the documents beyond Plaintiff’s 

reach.1

 A balance must be struck between Plaintiff’s need for the documents—which is 

                                               

1

 Defendant’s invocation of California Unemployment Insurance Code section 1094 is 

unavailing. Although this statute creates an absolute privilege, Crest Catering Co. v. Sup. 

Ct. of L.A. Cty., 398 P.2d 150, 151 (Cal. 1965), federal courts are not bound to recognize 

state privileges in a federal question case. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 501; Garrett v. City 

& Cnty. of S.F., 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 n.6 (9th Cir. 1987) (personnel files discoverable in a 

Case 3:16-cv-02372-CAB-WVG Document 35 Filed 12/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

16-CV-2372-CAB(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

high here given the apparently close relationship between the information contained in the 

documents and a central justification Defendant advances in its defense—and the 

individuals’ privacy interests. In re Complaint of Francis, No. 16-CV-1873-H(JMA), 2017 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189954, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2017); Youngevity Int’l, Inc. v. Smith, 

No. 16-CV-704-BTM(JLB), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96865, at *11 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 

2017). Neither consideration is dispositive and, under the circumstances here, the Court 

seeks to fashion a remedy that reasonably satisfies both interests. See Dale Evans Parkway 

2012, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187094, at *14. 

 Here, Plaintiff has agreed to be bound by a protective order that protects the EDD 

documents.2

 (Doc. No. 31 at 5 n.2.) Having considered the competing interests, the Court 

finds a protective order strikes the appropriate balance between the need for the information 

in the disputed documents and the privacy of the persons listed therein. See Soto v. City of 

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“A carefully drafted protective order 

could minimize the impact of . . . disclosure.”) The Court therefore requires the parties to 

draft a protective order that limits the dissemination of the EDD documents and allows 

their use for purposes of this litigation only. Such a protective order will protect the third 

parties’ and Defendant’s privacy interests. 

                                               

federal civil rights action despite claims of privilege under state law); Breed v. United 

States District Court, 542 F.2d 1114, 1115 (9th Cir. 1976) (state privilege law, while not 

binding in federal question case, can be a useful referent); Leon v. Cnty. of San Diego, 202 

F.R.D. 631, 635 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (federal courts should attempt to accommodate state 

privilege in federal question cases unless doing so would impair assertion of a federal 

right); United States v. King, 73 F.R.D. 103, 105 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) (“A strong policy of 

comity between state and federal sovereignties impels federal courts to recognize state 

privileges where this can be accomplished at no substantial cost to federal substantive and 

procedural policy.”). Here, the privilege in section 1094 cannot be accommodated without 

inhibiting the continued prosecution of Plaintiff’s federal claims. 

2

 This concession is significant because Plaintiff has vociferously opposed entry of a 

protective order as a matter of general principle in an unrelated case before the Court. 

Case 3:16-cv-02372-CAB-WVG Document 35 Filed 12/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

16-CV-2372-CAB(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s objection to the subpoena served by 

Plaintiff is OVERRULED. No later than January 12, 2018, the parties shall lodge a draft 

protective order and file a request for entry of the protective order.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 29, 2017 

                                              

3

 Although the Court instructed the parties to include a maximum two-page discussion 

regarding extension of the fact discovery deadline, Plaintiff did not do so. However, 

Defendant requested a two-month extension of the fact discovery deadline to conduct 

potential unrelated follow-up discovery after the depositions of Angel and Anjelea Perez, 

which were to have taken place October 25, 2017, and Intervenor, which was to have taken 

place on October 30, 2017. The instant discovery dispute does not relate to these 

depositions. No later than January 12, 2018, Defendant may renew the request for a twomonth extension for limited discovery that may have been necessary after these 

depositions. The renewed request must specify the precise purpose(s) for any extension. 

Absent a renewed request for this limited purpose, the now-expired fact discovery deadline 

remains as previously set. 

Case 3:16-cv-02372-CAB-WVG Document 35 Filed 12/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5