CONNER V. CITY OF ONTARIO

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 11, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

CONNER V. CITY OF ONTARIO

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff Avondre Conner filed this action against Defendant City of

Ontario. The operative first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for (1)

discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) failure to investigate and prevent

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and (5) violation of Labor Code sections 98.6 and

1102.5. The case is at issue with a Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for August 4,

2026.

On February 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion to quash deposition subpoenas issued to

two of Plaintiff’s prior employers: (1) The People Concern; and (2) Delta Airlines. Defendant

opposes. There is no reply as of Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at 9:52 a.m.

ANALYSIS

Statement of Law

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), states:

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents,

electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein,

or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person

described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an

opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or

directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including

protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to

protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations

of the right of privacy of the person.

A party, witness, consumer, employee, or person whose personally identifying information is

sought may bring the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §1987.1, subd. (b).)

No meet and confer effort is required to bring a motion to quash. (Code Civ. Proc., §1987.1.)

Sanctions against the losing party are discretionary, pursuant to Section 1987.2, if the court finds

the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification, or if one or more

of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc., §1987.2.) When a trial

court exercises its discretion to issue discovery sanctions, the court must delineate the specific

acts upon which the sanctions are awarded. (First City Properties, Inc. v. MacAdam (1996) 49

Cal.App.4th 507, 515.)

Separate statement. As a threshold matter, Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion

for failure to provide a separate statement under California Rules of Court, rule

3.1345(a)(5). Enforcement of this rule is discretionary (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.

Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409, fn. 14), and given the limited

matters at issue here a separate statement would not be particularly helpful or useful. Therefore,

the Court will address the motion on its merits.

On the merits. The subpoenas issued to both The People Concern and Delta Air Lines

each seek all documents relating to Plaintiff’s dates of employment, including but not limited to

offer letters, employment agreements, and separation notices. The subpoena issued to The

People Concern also seeks all documents demonstrating who Plaintiff’s supervisors were during

his employment with that entity. (Hirsch Decl., Exhs. A, B.)

Plaintiff argues the records are protected by his constitutional right to privacy; because

Defendant cannot establish a compelling need for the records; because the records are not

directly relevant to this litigation; and because there are less intrusive methods of obtaining the

information.

In opposition, Defendant presents evidence in an effort to show Plaintiff has not been

fully forthcoming or truthful during discovery regarding certain details of his prior employment in

the following respects:

• Plaintiff’s application to work for Defendant stated he attended Santa Monica College

from 2013 to 2016, but a subsequent application to Southern California Health &

Rehabilitation Program (SCHARP) omitted this reference. (Clark Decl., Exhs. F, G.)

• Plaintiff’s application to work for Defendant indicated he was employed with Delta

from “3/2022-Present”, but his SCHARP application instead indicated Plaintiff was

employed with Safe Parking LA from March 2022 through 2025. (Clark Decl., Exhs. F,

G.) Defendant contends this is inaccurate because Plaintiff only commenced work

with Safe Parking LA in March 2024 as evidenced by an offer letter from that entity.

(Clark Decl., Exh. D.) Plaintiff testified he did not work for Delta and Safe Parking

concurrently. (Clark Decl., Exh. H, 245:4-10.)

• Plaintiff’s application to work for Defendant indicated Joanna Brandt was his

supervisor at The People Concern, but his SCHARP application listed Shatisha

Mann. (Clark Decl., Exhs. F, G.) Plaintiff testified Mann is his mother who did not work

for The People Concern. Rather, Plaintiff testified he worked “with” Mann, who

apparently worked for “the public health department” at the time. (Clark Decl., Exh.

H, 237:3-18.) Mann also completed a Professional Reference questionnaire in

connection with Plaintiff’s application to SCHARP, listing herself as “Former Director

The P” with the remainder of this response cut off. (Clark Decl., Exh. F.) Defendant

contends the cut off language indicated Mann stated she was former director of The

People Concern.

• On his SCHARP application, Plaintiff listed Mann separately as both a personal and

professional reference who he had been acquainted with for five years even though

both categories asked for unrelated references. (Clark Decl., Exh. F.) Plaintiff also

listed Mann as a professional reference on his application to work for Defendant.

(Clark Decl., Exh. G.)

Individuals have a constitutional right of privacy that protects their information. (Williams

v. Superior Court (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) A privacy interest is

invaded if there is “a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of

privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Ibid.; Hill v.

National Collegiate Athletic Assn (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37.)

When discovery seeks information implicating the constitutional right of privacy, the standard of

review will depend on the seriousness of the invasion, i.e., a compelling interest applies if the

privacy invasion concerns an interest fundamental to personal autonomy but otherwise a

balancing test based on the strength of the privacy interest, the seriousness of the invasion, and

the availability of alternatives and protective measures. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552;

Lewis v. Superior Court (Medical Board of California) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 561, 572.)

Although Plaintiff contends the compelling interest standard applies, the privacy interest is

insufficient to warrant that standard. While Plaintiff maintains a privacy interest to his

employment records, the scope of records sought here are relatively narrow. Defendant only

seeks documents reflecting Plaintiff’s dates of employment, including but not limited to offer

letters, employment agreements, and separation notices, as well as documents showing who

Plaintiff’s supervisors were at The People Concern. This certainly does not implicate an interest

fundamental to personal autonomy, rendering the privacy determination subject to a balancing

test.

Defendant demonstrates Plaintiff was either dishonest or at minimum shaded the truth on one or

more of his employment applications, including possibly his application to work with Defendant.

Plaintiff’s argument that the material can be obtained through less intrusive means fails because

Plaintiff himself has shown a capacity to be dishonest in this respect as evidenced by the

discrepancies in the application, leaving the only way to verify the information by obtaining the

records directly from the third parties involved.

In Sirota v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp. (N.D.Cal. Mar. 16, 2006, No. C 05-03296 SI) 2006 LX

75808, the plaintiff alleged he suffered harassment and retaliation after taking disability leave.

(Id. at *1-2.) The defendant subpoenaed two of the plaintiff’s former employers. While

acknowledging California’s recognition of a limited privacy right in employee records, the Court

noted the plaintiff’s privacy interest was “vastly reduced” because he had initiated the lawsuit.

(Id. at *6-7.) The District Court further found the plaintiff’s privacy interest was further reduced

because he gave the defendant permission to contact former employers when he applied to

work with the defendant. (Id. at *7.) The District Court concluded the relevance of the

employment records outweighed any privacy intrusion. (Ibid.)

It appears the sought after information is relevant to the eighth affirmative defense asserted in

Defendant’s answer. The evidence sought is therefore reasonably likely to lead to admissible

evidence and Defendant’s interest in disclosure is sufficiently strong to overcome the privacy

interest. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.