Hetland v. LendingTree, LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 C. JOHANNES HETLAND, Case No. 19-cv-02288-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: SUBSEQUENT 9 v. EMPLOYER DISCOVERY DISPUTE 10 LENDINGTREE, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendant. 11 12 In this employment dispute action, Plaintiff alleges he was terminated in retaliation for 13 complaining about Defendant’s failure to provide him with performance-based restricted stock 14 units. He makes claims for breach of contract and certain wage and hour violations. Now pending 15 before the Court is a joint discovery dispute letter brief arising from Defendant’s subpoena to 16 Plaintiff’s subsequent employer eHealth. After reviewing the parties’ written submission, the 17 Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 18 The Court finds that, with one exception noted below, all of the requested documents 19 implicate Plaintiff’s privacy interests under state law. “To evaluate privacy objections under 20 either federal or state law, the Court must balance the party’s need for the information against the 21 individual’s privacy right in his or her employment files.” Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., No. C 05- 22 02520 TEH, 2008 WL 3287035, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2008). 23 With this balancing in mind, the Court rules as follows. 24 Categories 3, 4 & 6. Defendant’s request for documents related to performance 25 evaluations or any disciplinary action while Plaintiff was employed at eHealth is DENIED. 26 Plaintiff’s performance at his subsequent employment is not at issue in this case. Further, the 27 Court disagrees that Plaintiff’s performance at eHealth would show that Defendant’s reasons for 1 propensity evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Defendant’s citation to Davis v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 2 No. CV 17-1699-GW (PLAx), 2017 WL 10562943 (C.D Cal. July 12, 2017), fails to persuade the 3 Court otherwise. There the plaintiff was apparently claiming lost damages for the period after she 4 obtained and then lost subsequent employment and thus the employment records were relevant to 5 mitigation. Here, in contrast, Plaintiff is not seeking any damages for the period after he obtained 6 employment with eHealth. Defendant’s citation to Frazier v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., No. 11- 7 mc-80270 RS (NC), 2011 WL 5854601 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011), is similarly unpersuasive 8 because it involved requests for the plaintiff’s personnel file, undefined, from the plaintiff’s 9 employer just prior to the employment at issue. Defendant has also not identified any reason to 10 believe that Plaintiff was terminated from eHealth, let alone terminated for engaging in the same 11 conduct for which Defendant claims it terminated his employment. Thus, on balance, the Court 12 declines to compel production of these documents. 13 Category 5. The Court can discern no reason why documents sufficient to confirm 14 Plaintiff’s start and end dates at eHealth should not be produced. If Plaintiff’s new hire 15 documents, which he has agreed to allow to be produced, confirm his start date, then no further 16 documents on that score need be produced. However, Plaintiff has not agreed to production of a 17 document that confirms his end date and such information is not private. Accordingly, the motion 18 to compel is GRANTED, but only as to documents sufficient to show the actual start and end 19 dates. 20 Category 7 & 8. The Court is not persuaded that the documents sought are relevant to a 21 claim or defense in this action such that they should be compelled to be produced despite their 22 private nature. As Plaintiff has agreed to production of eHealth’s offer letter, Defendant does not 23 need the additional documents to compare eHealth’s offer to what Defendant offered and offers 24 Plaintiff rejected; Defendant is getting that information. Defendant’s other proffered reasons are 25 too weak to require production. And again, Plaintiff is not seeking any damages for the period 26 after he started working at eHealth, and he has already agreed to provide his offer letter and 27 agreements or contracts with eHealth. The Court does not see how Defendant needs more. 1 This Order disposes of Docket No. 24. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: December 23, 2019 4 5 ne 6 ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28