Saramiento v. Fresh Harvest, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 11, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-07974
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RIGOBERTO SARAMIENTO, et al., Case No. 20-cv-07974-BLF (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 9 v. LETTER BRIEF RE PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENAS TO VERIZON 10 FRESH HARVEST, INC., et al., WIRELESS AND AT&T 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 68

12 Before the court is the Parties’ discovery dispute at Dkt. 68 regarding subpoenas served on 13 Verizon and AT&T for call data information for Leticia Ridaura, an officer of defendant Fresh 14 Harvest and Oscar Ramos, the dispatch manager for defendants Fresh Harvest and SMD. 15 Defendants Fresh Harvest and SMD object to the subpoenas as improper and an invasion of 16 privacy. Plaintiff Sarmiento claims that the information sought is relevant because both 17 individuals contacted him and other drivers regardless of whether the drivers were nominally 18 employed by defendants Fresh Harvest, SMD Logistics, Fresh Foods, or Rava Foods. Plaintiff 19 further argues that as limited, the subpoenas do not present an invasion of privacy. 20 The Court held a hearing on August 10, 2021. At the hearing, the Court expressed 21 concerns regarding the subpoenas’ overbreadth and the potential for invasion of the privacy of the 22 individuals whose cell phone information is sought. The Court overrules defendants’ other 23 objections. Upon further consideration of the arguments of counsel and relevant case law, the 24 Court finds that the subpoenas are properly limited to call data only and that as such, they do not 25 implicate rights to privacy. Based upon the proffer of counsel both in the papers and at the 26 hearing, the Court finds that the information sought is relevant to joint employer status, a central 27 issue in the pending motion for summary judgment. 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. “The scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to 2 || Rule 34 and the other discovery rules ... .” Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45. Federal law 3 also supports the Court's conclusion that the disclosure of telephone numbers, along with the 4 || date, time, and duration of calls, does not represent a significant intrusion of privacy. Indeed, the 5 Supreme Court has held that individuals have no expectation of privacy in outgoing telephone 6 || numbers because “[a]ll telephone users realize that they must ‘convey’ phone numbers to the 7 || telephone company” and that “the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of 8 the numbers they dial.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 742, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 9 (1979). The Ninth Circuit has similarly held that individuals also have no expectation of privacy 10 |] in incoming telephone numbers and related phone records. See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 575 11 || F.3d 900, 914 (9th Cir.2009). 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff and the third parties may proceed with the production of records 13 sought pursuant to the subpoenas. SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: August 11, 2021 16

17 Seis veut SUSAN VAN KEULEN Z 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28