Saramiento v. Fresh Harvest, Inc.

Background

The court addressed a discovery dispute concerning subpoenas served on Verizon Wireless and AT&T. The subpoenas sought call data for Leticia Ridaura, an officer of Fresh Harvest, and Oscar Ramos, the dispatch manager for Fresh Harvest and SMD. Fresh Harvest and SMD objected that the subpoenas were improper and invaded the privacy of the individuals whose cell-phone information was sought.

Plaintiff Rigoberto Saramiento argued that the information was relevant because Ridaura and Ramos contacted him and other drivers, including drivers nominally employed by Fresh Harvest, SMD Logistics, Fresh Foods, or Rava Foods. He also argued that the subpoenas were sufficiently limited to avoid a privacy invasion.

Court’s analysis

The court expressed concerns at the hearing about the subpoenas’ breadth and the potential privacy impact. After considering the parties’ arguments and relevant case law, however, it found that the subpoenas were properly limited to call data. The court concluded that the requested information was relevant to joint-employer status, which it described as a central issue in the pending motion for summary judgment.

The court also relied on federal law concerning telephone records. It cited the Supreme Court’s holding that people generally have no expectation of privacy in outgoing telephone numbers conveyed to a telephone company, and Ninth Circuit authority concerning incoming telephone numbers and related phone records. Based on those authorities, the court concluded that producing telephone numbers and the dates, times, and durations of calls did not represent a significant privacy intrusion.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen overruled the defendants’ other objections and ruled that the plaintiff and the third parties could proceed with producing the records sought by the subpoenas. The order resolved the discovery dispute; it did not decide the pending summary-judgment motion.