Dmv. V. Superior Court
Citation | 100 Cal.App.4th 363,122 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 |
Decision Date | 18 July 2002 |
Docket Number | No. B156383.,B156383. |
Parties | DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the County of Los Angeles, Respondent; The People of the State of California et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, George Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, Brentford J. Ferreira and Shirley S.N. Sun, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest, the People.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest, Teodorico Manliclic Carmona.
Petitioner, Department of Motor Vehicles (the DMV), seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent court to vacate its order requiring it to produce to the People its unredacted records concerning real party in interest, Teodorico Manliclic Carmona (Carmona), who is charged with vehicular homicide arising out of a May 24, 2000, traffic collision. The People issued a subpoena duces tecum for the records. The DMV opposed the subpoena, claiming privileges under Vehicle Code section 1808.51 and Evidence Code section 1040, subdivision (b)(2). Carmona joined in the People's request that the DMV produce the records.2
The DMV contends that entries in Carmona's driving record relating to his physical or mental condition are absolutely privileged (1) under section 1808.5, which provides, in relevant part: "all records of the department relating to the physical or mental condition of any person ... are confidential and not open to public inspection]" and (2) under Evidence Code section 1040, subdivision (b), the official information privilege.
We hold that: (1) section 1808.5 does not create a privilege, independent of Evidence Code section 1040, to withhold information required to be produced by subpoena; (2) although the DMV established that its claim of privilege involved "official information" within the meaning of Evidence Code section 1040, section 1808.5 does not forbid disclosure of such official information within the meaning of Evidence Code section 1040, subdivision (b)(1); and (3) under Evidence Code section 1040, subdivision (b)(2), the necessity for disclosure of complete copies of Carmona's driving records outweighs the DMVs interest in preserving confidentiality. Accordingly, we find that the trial court's order requiring the DMV to produce to the People the entirety of Carmona's driving records was a sound exercise of discretion, and we deny the petition.
On May 24, 2000, Carmona, while traveling on the 101 freeway, clipped one car, rear-ended another a mile later, and then hit a third vehicle, a utility truck, causing it to overturn and kill the driver. Witnesses reported Carmona to have been making unsafe and precipitous lane changes and to have been driving at excessive speeds. A short distance after hitting the utility truck, Carmona's car stopped in the center divider. A witness who encountered Carmona shortly after his car stopped described him as clammy, bluish, and staring blankly.
Carmona was transported for medical care. While hospitalized, he made a statement to a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer investigating the accident. That statement, as well as witness statements, was contained in an accident report generated by the CHP and filed with the DMV.
Subsequently, Carmona was charged with vehicular homicide. On August 2, 2001, the People served the DMV with a business records subpoena duces tecum (the subpoena) requiring it to produce: "All documents maintained by DMV regarding driving record of Teodorico Manliclic Carmona including: Copy of file of physical investigation/lapse of consciousness, priority re-examination, interview contact 8-16-99, tape recording and official transcript of hearing, all documents submitted, including any submitted or referenced by Mr. Carmona; and Copy of file of fatal, including same of all [sic]; and certified copy of driver's record/green & white printout; and certified copy of H6 printout; and any and all other documents or related documents maintained by your agency concerning Mr. Carmona's driving record." The documents commanded by the subpoena were represented to be material to the issues in the case because they were "[n]eeded for successful prosecution of the above-referenced vehicular homicide case."
On August 24, 2001, the DMV responded to the subpoena by transmitting to the clerk of the court an unsigned custodian of records declaration purporting to transmit "true and correct copies of available records." A letter accompanying the records and the custodian of records declaration provided: Neither the custodian of records declaration nor the letter identified what had been redacted or otherwise withheld under a claim of confidentiality.
The DMV produced 96 pages of documents in response to the People's subpoena for Carmona's driving record, of which 18 pages appear to be redacted. The redactions are contained in documents discussing Carmona's medical history, including records related to administrative proceedings placing his driving privileges on medical probation and revoking them.
On October 24, 2001, in the criminal action, the DMV filed a noticed "Motion for Order Modifying Subpoena, or, in the Alternative for a Protective Order," citing to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 [motion to quash], section 1808.5 [ ], and Evidence Code section 1040, subdivision (b) [official information privilege], seeking an order relieving it from producing the redacted information. The DMV contended that section 1808.5 rendered the redacted information confidential and not subject to disclosure, disclosure was against the public interest in driver safety because confidentiality of medical evaluations was necessary to ensure accurate reporting, the information was available from non-privileged sources, and Carmona's consent to disclosure had no effect on the DMV's independent assertion of privilege.
The People filed a joint opposition to the motion and a motion to compel, in which it informed the court that Carmona intended to pursue an affirmative defense of unconsciousness due to diabetic coma, and that the voluntariness of any unconsciousness would be at issue in the pending criminal proceeding. The People contended plausible justification had been established for the subpoenaed documents. Carmona had been involved in a 1999 traffic accident, which he had attributed to his diabetic condition. Therefore, evidence of his knowledge of his condition, including his prior statements about it, as well as his eating, sleeping, driving, and medication practices, were material to whether he had knowingly failed to exercise the caution of a similarly situated reasonably prudent driver. The People disputed that section 1808.5 created an absolute privilege, and maintained that, on balance, the public interest was best served by disclosure.
The DMV's reply papers were supported by a declaration by the chief of the DMV's information services branch, stating, in pertinent part: "Pursuant to Vehicle Code section 1808.5, and departmental practice physical and mental condition record information is not disclosed to anyone, including the court, law enforcement agency, and other governmental agency."
On January 24, 2002, the DMV's motion was heard. Carmona joined with the People in seeking that the DMV be required to produce unredacted copies of his driving record, and on that basis, the trial court ordered the DMV to comply in full with the People's subpoena.
On February 11, 2002, the DMV filed a petition for writ of mandate, contending that section 1808.5 and Evidence Code section 1040 created statutory privileges to withhold the medical information contained in Carmona's driving record, unaffected by Carmona's consent to release the information. We stayed production of the DMV's records, issued an order to show cause, and set the matter for hearing.
Appellate review of issues of statutory construction is de novo. (Redevelopment Agency v. County of Los Angeles (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 68, 74, 89 Cal. Rptr.2d 10.)
Appellate review of discovery orders applying the law to facts is under the abuse of discretion standard. We set aside the court's order granting or denying discovery only where it has been demonstrated that discretion was abused. (People v. Superior Court (Baez) (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1186, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 706.) Discretion is abused only when the trial court "`exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.'" (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566, 86 Cal.Rptr. 65, 468 P.2d 193, quoting Loomis v. Loomis (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 345, 348, 5 Cal.Rptr. 550.)
The DMV contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering it to disclose the entirety of Carmona's records, because section 1808.5 requires it to keep driver medical information absolutely confidential, section 1808.5 and Evidence Code section 1040 set forth absolute privileges with respect to driver medical information, and even in the absence of an absolute privilege, the public interest in maintaining confidentiality of medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roman Cath. Archbishop of La v. Super. Ct.
... ... 131 Cal.App.4th 417 ... The ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, ... SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; ... The People, Real Party in Interest ... Does 1 and ... 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 ... Cal.Rptr.2d 504 [per Chadbourne, DMV bore burden of establishing claim of privilege based on Evid.Code, § 1040 (public entity has ... ...
-
Bd. of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
... ... " ( Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Trustees of Southern Cal. IBEW-NECA Pension Plan (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 621, 628, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 440 ( LAUSD ).) In Department of Motor Vehicles v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 363, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ( DMV ), the court considered a statute declaring that " all records of the [DMV] relating to the physical or mental condition of any person [are] confidential and not open to public inspection. " ( Id. at pp. 370-371, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 504, fn. omitted.) The court concluded that the statute did not ... ...
-
Perez v. County of Santa Clara
... ... COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant and Appellant ... No. H024330 ... Court of Appeal, Sixth District ... August 25, 2003 ... Review Denied November 25, 2003 ... [3 ... ( Department of Motor Vehicles v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 363, 369, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 504; Cadiz Land Co., Inc. v. Rail Cycle, ... ...
-
Crenshaw v. Mony Life Ins. Co., Civil No. 02cv2108 LAB(RBB).
... ... Crenshaw, Counter-Defendant ... Civil No. 02cv2108 LAB(RBB) ... United States District Court, S.D. California ... April 27, 2004 ... Page 1016 ... COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... Page ... 164 (D.Alaska 1985) ... Recently, in Snider v. Superior Court, 113 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1197-98, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 119, 125 (Cal.Ct.App.2003), the court ... ...
-
Chapter 4 - §1. Overview
...information redacted from expert report subject to further disclosure on court's order); DMV v. Superior Ct. (2d Dist.2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 363, 377 (privileged information redacted from DMV records subject to further disclosure on court's order); Andrade v. Superior Ct. (2d Dist.1996) 46 C......
-
Table of Cases null
...Bd., 26 Cal. App. 5th 93, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 706 (1st Dist. 2018)—Ch. 2, §13.1.2(3) Department of Motor Vehicles v. Superior Court, 100 Cal. App. 4th 363, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 504 (2d Dist. 2002)— Ch. 4-C, §1.7.2(1); §7.2.2(2) Department of Public Works, People ex rel. v. Donovan, 57 Cal. 2d 34......
-
Chapter 4 - §7. Official-information privilege
...Ct. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107, 124, overruled on other grounds, People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96; DMV v. Superior Ct. (2d Dist.2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 363, 373-74; County of Orange v. Superior Ct. (4th Dist.2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 759, 763. Information may be acquired through an employee's own......