MENCHUE v. UNDERGROUND CONSTR. CO., INC., ET AL.

Case No. CU25-09360

Motions to Quash Subpoena

Plaintiff’s motions to quash subpoenas are granted.

From Plaintiff’s union, IBEW Local 1245-Energy Workers Center, Inc., Defendant Underground Electrical Construction Company, Inc. seeks all complaints regarding or related to it, Defendant Underground Construction Co, Inc., or Underground Construction without limitation by timeframe or subject matter. Defendant also seeks all documents concerning any complaint or grievance by Plaintiff without any limitation by timeframe, subject matter, or target, all documents concerning any complaints or

grievances against Plaintiff by anyone without limitation by timeframe or subject matter, and all documents concerning the investigation into any complaints or grievances against Plaintiff by anyone without limitation by timeframe or subject matter.

From Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim administrator, Helmsman Management Services LLC, Defendant demands all documents concerning or related to any workers’ compensation claim filed by Plaintiff, including medical records and investigation material, without limitation by timeframe, subject matter, or relevance to Plaintiff’s claims. Additionally, even for documents directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, such as documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim arising out of the injuries he sustained from being hit by a semi-truck in March of 2022 (FAC, ¶¶ 26, 37), the documents are still protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy and Defendant has not shown that it has no less intrusive means to obtain them. (See, Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.4th 447, 453 [court abuses its discretion when it fails to require a less intrusive method of discovery].)

From Plaintiff’s subsequent employer, Elite Underground, Inc., Defendant requests the entirety of Plaintiff’s personnel file, all payroll records, and all documents mentioning any reason(s) for termination without limitation by timeframe, subject matter, or relevance to Plaintiff’s claims. Again, to the extent that records pertaining to mitigation are directly relevant to Defendant’s defense, they are nonetheless protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy and Defendant has not shown that it has no less intrusive means to obtain them.

CARRILLO DE GARCIA, et al. v. FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE