Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 20STCV37401, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF PLAINTIFF’S MILITARY PERSONNEL RECORDS TO DEFENDANTS

On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff, Joe E. Collins III, filed this action against Defendants, Maxine Waters and Citizens for Waters. The Complaint asserts causes of action for slander, libel, and violations of Penal Code section 115.2 and Civil Code section 3344.6.

The court adopts the following facts from Collins v. Waters (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 70: In 2020, challenger Joe E. Collins III and incumbent Maxine Waters competed for a seat in Congress. During the campaign, Waters accused Collins of a dishonorable discharge from the Navy. Waters circulated the claim in radio and print ads. In response, Collins posted a document on his campaign website. The document stated his discharge had been “under honorable conditions (general).” (Collins, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 73-74.)

On April 16, 2025, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an order authorizing release of Plaintiff’s military personnel records to Defendants.

On April 17, 2025, the court denied the ex parte application for lack of exigency. The court stated Defendants were to bring a noticed motion and shortened time on the hearing. The court scheduled the hearing for May 13, 2025 and set a briefing schedule. Defendants’ ex parte application was construed as Defendants’ motion.

Military records are maintained by the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) at the National Archives. Access to the specific military personnel and/or medical records on file at the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, Missouri, or Valmeyer, Illinois, may be gained pursuant "to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction." Valid court orders should be addressed to this center. Subpoenas qualify as orders of a court of competent jurisdiction only if they have been signed by a judge. To be valid, court orders must also be signed by a judge. Authority for these requirements is 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) (11), as interpreted by Doe vs. DiGenova, 779 F. 2d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1985), and Stiles vs. Atlanta Gas and Light Company, 453 F. Supp. 798 (N.D. Ga.1978).

The court order must describe the records and information desired in sufficient detail to identify them with accuracy. A minimum of detail would include as many of the following as possible: complete name, service number, social security number, date of birth, branch of service, and dates of military service (active, reserve, or retired). If clinical treatment (inpatient) records are needed, include also the dates, places, and type(s) of treatment given.

(National Archives, National Personnel Records Center – Court Order Requirements, available at https://www.archives.gov/personnel-records-center/court-order.)

Defendants seek an order authorizing the release of Plaintiff’s complete military personnel records to the clerk of this court. (See Proposed Order, dated May 6, 2025. Plaintiff argues the motion is moot because Plaintiff has offered to produce the DD-214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) through standard discovery. The DD-214 provides in pertinent part that Plaintiff was discharged “under honorable conditions (general).” (Complaint, Ex. A.) To the extent Defendants persist in her request to obtain his complete military personnel record, Plaintiff opposes the release of those records on the ground the request is overly broad, irrelevant, and invasive. Plaintiff posits the DD-214 fully addresses the defamation claim at issue.

Upon review, the court finds Defendants are entitled to discovery of Plaintiff’s complete military personnel records. Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, discovery is not limited to Plaintiff’s claims. A defendant is entitled to obtain discovery which supports their defense or bears upon the character of the opposing party. “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. ‘[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’” (Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Further, “discovery is not limited to admissible evidence[.]” (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.)

As Defendants point out, the DD-214 also indicates the narrative reason for Plaintiff’s separation from the Navy is “misconduct (serious offense).” (Complaint, Ex. A.) Defendants contend a complete production of Plaintiff’s military personnel file are “likely to contain information regarding military investigations and disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff – all excerpted and/or alluded to in Plaintiff’s public filings (see id.)[1] – which are relevant and necessary to a full understanding of the circumstances of his discharge from the Navy as well as his ‘credibility [as] a witness.’” (Reply, p. 4:17-20.) Defendants also reference a public court filing from December 7, 2017, submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment, which purportedly indicates that Plaintiff sought to have his military discharge status updated from some undisclosed status to “honorable”, the narrative reason for separation to “Separation,” and the separation code to 246 (i.e., “discharge for the good of the service”), and prior court order issued by a federal judge [stating] that Plaintiff was dishonorably discharged.” (Reply, p. 5:3-8.)

Plaintiff’s complete military record may well be relevant to Plaintiff’s credibility and whether it was reasonable for Waters to disregard or disbelieve Plaintiff’s contentions regarding his discharge status. The discovery sought is relevant and tailored to the issues in this case.

Plaintiff also opposes the motion on the grounds that (1) he has a legitimate privacy interest in his military personnel record and (2) the request is disproportionate to the needs of the case as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020, and (3) Defendants’ delay and procedural deficiencies warrant denial. These arguments are unavailing.

First, under Williams, supra, Plaintiff has the burden to show his privacy interests outweigh the need for discovery. Plaintiff does not meet that burden.

Second, as discussed above, Defendants discovery request is proportionate to the needs of this case. Indeed, they bear upon key issues in this case, such as the veracity of Plaintiff’s contention he served honorably for his entire 13.5 years in the United States Navy (see Complaint, ¶ 8) and the reasonableness of Waters’s belief that Plaintiff was dishonorably discharged.

Last, Plaintiff makes passing reference to Toshiba America Electronic Components v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 762, 771 for the proposition that broad requests absent necessity are disfavored. Toshiba, however, is in apposite. As discussed above, Plaintiff fails to establish any genuine privacy concerns related to the disclosure of his records.[2]

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendants are to submit the proposed order and subpoena for Plaintiff’s military personnel records to the NPRC within 5 court days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Defendants cite to Waters’s declaration submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment.

[2] Defendants are amendable to entering a stipulated protective order to address Plaintiff’s privacy concerns.