Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2021-01232848, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21.  Defendant Rachael Soriano objects to each of the discovery requests on the basis that the discovery requests seek private financial information that is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

It is well established that an individual’s personal financial information is protected by the constitutional right of privacy in California. (See Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 480-481; Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 549-550; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657.)

Even so, “[t]he constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged to accommodate a compelling public interest. [Citations.] One such interest, evidenced by California's broad discovery statutes, is ‘ “the historically important state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal proceedings.” ’ [Citation.] When an individual’s right of privacy in his financial affairs conflicts with the public need for discovery in litigation, the competing interests must be carefully balanced. [Citation.] Even where the balance weighs in favor of disclosure of private information, the scope of the disclosure will be narrowly circumscribed; such an invasion of the right of privacy ‘ “must be drawn with narrow specificity” ’ and is permitted only to the extent necessary for a fair resolution of the lawsuit.” [Citations.]  (Moskowitz v. Super. Ct. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 315-316; disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (Williams) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.)

When a “defendant’s financial condition is relevant to the issues,” it “is properly discoverable.”  (People v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 710, 713 [discussing punitive damages].)

Here, Plaintiff correctly points out that Probate Code section 13550 provides:

“Except as provided in Sections 11446, 13552, 13553, and 13554, upon the death of a married person, the surviving spouse is personally liable for the debts of the deceased spouse chargeable against the property described in Section 13551 to the extent provided in Section 13551.”  (Prob. Code, § 13550.)

In her Case Management Statement, Defendant states that “Plaintiff will have to prove the amount of nonexempt community property which is available to pay for this supposed debt” before Defendant can be held liable for any debts her late husband allegedly owed.  With this statement, it appears that Defendant concedes that the nature of the assets she holds is relevant to whether Plaintiff can recover under from Defendant under the Agreements.

Accordingly, the court finds that financial records Plaintiff seeks goes directly to whether Defendant can be liable under the alleged Agreements and related debts allegedly incurred by her late husband. 

As such, the Motions are GRANTED except as to Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 18.  Defendant sufficiently answered Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 18.

Notably, the court finds no issues with the verifications served by Defendant and Plaintiff cites to no legal authority establishing that there is, in fact, an issue with the verifications.  Defendant signed the verifications on May 31, 2022 attesting to the facts stated in the responses.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a) and 2031.250 (a).)  Defendant’s attorney signed the responses on June 1, 2022, attesting to the objections.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (c) and 2031.250 (c).)

The court finds substantial justification for Defendant’s privacy objection given the nature of the financial information sought and the balancing test involved in determining whether the records and information requested are discoverable.  As such, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Plaintiff to provide notice.