Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV03808, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants and Cross-Complainants TURNING POINT NETWORK LLC (“TPN”), LISA PERONA REYES, TRESOR TULANDA, KEVIN LEWIS (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants DENNIS DEVAUGHN, KEITH ANDERSON, CHRISTINA FAVELA (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply has been filed. Any reply to the opposition was required to have been filed and served at least five court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

This action arises from an alleged agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants. On February 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants asserting the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2) damages for breach of partnership contract; and (3) fraud.

On May 29, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Protective Order Restricting Discovery and to Limit the Extent and Use of Discovery Method (the “Motion”). On July 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

Defendants bring this Motion on the basis of Welfare and Institutions Code (“WIC”) section 5328. Defendants contend that under WIC § 5328, all information and records obtained in the course of providing services to either voluntary or involuntary recipients shall be confidential. On this basis, Defendants move for a protective order prohibiting Plaintiffs from issuing a subpoena to the California Department of Developmental Services (“DDS”) as well as to persons employed by the DDS regarding TPN or TPN’s billing or any other records.

In opposition, Plaintiffs point out that they do not intend to propound discovery on the DDS, but rather they intend to subpoena the administrative and financial records of TPN from regional centers. (Declaration of Freddie Fletcher in Opposition to the Motion (“Fletcher Decl.”), ¶ 29.) Plaintiffs also argue that they have no intention of seeking confidential information and records of the recipients of services, but instead they intend to subpoena the financial records of TPN – a provider of services. (Id., ¶ 32.)

As an initial matter, the Court infers from the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel that no subpoena or any discovery has yet been served at the time of the filing of the Motion. (Id., ¶¶ 25-26.)

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2020.010 permits discovery of non-party witnesses through oral and written depositions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010(a)(1), (2); Hawkins v. TACA International Airlines, S.A. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 466, 476.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, the production of business records, or both. (Id., § 2020.020.) CCP section 1987.1 provides that “[i]f 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 [a party or a witness] . . . 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.”

Thus, a party or non-party, after service of a subpoena, may seek an order from the court quashing or modifying it and requesting a protective order. Defendants cite no basis or authority to support this Motion seeking to prevent discovery prior to its service, apart from their reliance on WIC section 5328.

WIC section 5328, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part, “[a]ll information and records obtained in the course of providing services under ... to either voluntary or involuntary recipients of services are confidential.” The statute, however, goes on to delineate numerous exceptions pursuant to which otherwise confidential information “shall be disclosed.” (Id., § 5328, subd.(a)(1)–(27).) Pursuant to one such exception, confidential information is disclosable “[t]o the courts, as necessary to the administration of justice.” (Id., § 5328, subd. (a)(6).) This provision “contemplates use of the information or records ‘as necessary to the administration of justice’ in some pending judicial action or proceeding.” (County of Riverside v. Superior Court (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d. 478, 481.) Therefore, “[t]he clear language of Welfare and Institutions Code section 5328, subdivision [(a)(6)] authorizes the disclosure of the evidence ... unless such evidence is otherwise nondisclosable.” (Mavroudis v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 594, 602.)

Moreover, the Court takes notice of the Regional Center of Orange County's Guidelines for Access to Vendor Records, which classifies “documents which contain confidential consumer information” as confidential, and states that “[c]onfidential records shall be produced pursuant to a valid subpoena, with identifying consumer information redacted.” (Fletcher Decl., ¶ 21.)

Therefore, even assuming that records sought to be discovered are confidential, there are exceptions to allow their discovery pursuant to a valid subpoena, and procedures are in place to protect the confidentiality of the information, including redaction of consumer information.

Accordingly, the Court finds the Motion is without basis, and is therefore DENIED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court