Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court

Decision Date09 December 1975
Docket NumberS.F. 23313
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 542 P.2d 977 VALLEY BANK OF NEVADA, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, Respondent; Joseph A. BARKETT et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Watson & Hoffe and William F. Whiting, Richmond, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Freeman, Rishwain & Hall, Maxwell M. Freeman and Gerald R. Newman, Stockton, for real parties in interest.

RICHARDSON, Justice.

In this case we consider under what circumstances a litigant may, through ordinary civil discovery procedures, obtain from a bank information disclosed to it in confidence by a customer. We have concluded that although such information is discoverable in a proper case, nevertheless the bank must first take reasonable steps to locate the customer, inform him of the discovery proceedings, and provide him a reasonable opportunity to interpose objections and seek appropriate protective orders.

Petitioner (Bank) sued real parties to recover the balance assertedly due on a promissory note executed and delivered by them to Bank to assist them in the purchase of the King's Castle Casino at Lake Tahoe. Although Bank loaned real parties $250,000 for this purpose, the remaining financing was unavailable and the purchase was never completed. Real parties defaulted on the note, and the present suit followed.

Real parties' primary defense to the suit is that Bank misrepresented the availability of additional financing 'in order to induce defendants (real parties) to borrow $250,000 to give to the seller, Nathan Jacobsen, who would use the money to keep King's Castle open,' thereby protecting the investment in King's Castle of other specified Bank customers, including the Teamsters Union.

In order to prove these allegations, real parties noticed the deposition of Bank's chairman, Mr. Thomas, asking him to bring with him bank records pertaining to loan transactions between Bank and seven named persons and corporations (including Jacobsen and King's Castle), 'together with any and all records of any banking relationships with the Teamsters Union and/or any casino owned, operated or mortgaged to the Teamsters Union.'

Bank, objecting to the disclosure of allegedly confidential information received from its customers, sought a protective order pursuant to section 2019, subdivision (b)(1), of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of its motion, Bank submitted the affidavit of its president, Mr. Sullivan, which stated, among other things, that Bank 'insists upon protecting the privacy of its customers and is not willing to disclose copies of any documents or records concerning the confidential transactions of its customers, other than the parties to this action.'

A hearing was held, at which counsel for Bank and real parties were present. The trial court ordered the information disclosed subject to certain limitations concerning the relevant time period and types of financial transactions to be disclosed. Although the court made no formal findings, the record indicates that the court determined that the requested information was both relevant to real parties' asserted defense to Bank's action and was not privileged or protected from discovery procedures. Bank brought the instant proceedings for mandate or prohibition to compel the trial court to make an appropriate protective order. We issued an alternative writ of mandate, having concluded that the issue before us is of first impression and of general interest to the bench and bar. (See Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169, 84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854.)

Preliminarily, we note that the record supports a conclusion that the requested information is 'relevant' to real parties' defense in this action. Under the discovery statutes, information is discoverable if it is unprivileged and is either relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to reveal admissible evidence. (See Code Civ.Proc., §§ 2016, subd. (b), 2031; Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d 161 at pp. 172--173, 84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854.) As we stated in the Pacific case, '. . . the relevance of the subject matter standard must be reasonably applied; in accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery (citation).' (Fns. omitted; 2 Cal.3d at p. 173, 84 Cal.Rptr. at p. 726, 465 P.2d at p. 862.) The information sought by real parties may assist in establishing an estoppel or fraud defense to Bank's suit.

Assuming relevance, and considering Bank's contention that such information is privileged and protected from discovery, we review the statutory privilege described in the Evidence Code (§ 900 et seq.). There is revealed no bank-customer privilege akin to the lawyer-client privilege (Evid.Code, § 950 et seq.) or the physician-patient privilege (Id., § 990 et seq.). Indeed, the general rule appears to be that there exists no common law privilege with respect to bank customer information. (58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, § 363, p. 215; Annot. (1937) 109 A.L.R. 1450.) Furthermore, it is clear that the privileges contained in the Evidence Code are Exclusive and the courts are not free to create new privileges as a matter of judicial policy. (Evid.Code, § 911, subd. (b); Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 539--540, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305.)

Nevertheless, despite the exclusivity of the Evidence Code on the subject of privileges and the absence of either a common law or statutory authority, overriding constitutional considerations may exist which impel us to recognize some limited form of protection for confidential information given to a bank by its customers.

A constitutional amendment adopted in 1974 elevated the right of privacy to an 'inalienable right' expressly protected by force of constitutional mandate. (Cal.Const., art. I, § 1.) Although the amendment is new and its scope as yet is neither carefully defined nor analysed by the courts, we may safely assume that the right of privacy extends to one's confidential financial affairs as well as to the details of one's personal life. Indeed, we recently discussed at length the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' which a bank customer entertains with respect to financial information disclosed to his bank. Thus, in Burrows v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 238, 118 Cal.Rptr. 166, 529 P.2d 590, we held that customer information voluntarily disclosed by a bank to law enforcement officers without the customer's knowledge or consent constituted the product of an unlawful search and seizure under article I, section 13, of the California Constitution. We stated in Burrows that 'It cannot be gainsaid that the customer of a bank expects that the documents, such as checks, which he transmits to the bank in the course of his business operations, will remain private, and that such an expectation is reasonable. . . . ( ) A bank customer's reasonable expectation is that, Absent compulsion by legal process, the matters he reveals to the bank will be utilized by the bank only for internal banking purposes.' (Italics added, 13 Cal.3d at p. 243, 118 Cal.Rptr. at p. 169, 529 P.2d at p. 593.) Similarly, it is the general rule in other jurisdictions that a bank impliedly agrees not to divulge confidential information without the customer's consent unless compelled by c...

To continue reading

Request your trial
204 cases
  • Hogya v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 1977
    ...14, 529 P.2d 46.4 Daly v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 132, 140, 137 Cal.Rptr. 14, 560 P.2d 1193; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 652, 655, 125 Cal.Rptr. 553, 542 P.2d 977; City of Fairfield v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.3d 768, 777, 122 Cal.Rptr. 543, 537 P.2d 375; Rudnick v. S......
  • Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1986
    ...nature have been ruled protected by the state constitutional right of privacy. (See, e.g., Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 125 Cal.Rptr. 553, 542 P.2d 977 [financial records]; Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 134 Cal.Rptr. 839 [ed......
  • Perkey v. Department of Motor Vehicles
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1986
    ...238, 247, 118 Cal.Rptr. 166, 529 P.2d 590), bank loan records and customer information (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657-658, 125 Cal.Rptr. 553, 542 P.2d 977), or an academic transcript (Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 134 Cal......
  • Connecticut Indem. Co. v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 12, 1999
    ...under appropriate safeguards to minimize the scope of intrusion and disclosure. (See, e.g., Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 125 Cal.Rptr. 553, 542 P.2d 977.) It is not a sufficient justification to compel disclosure that the information is relevant to pending l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Privileges and public policy exclusions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...1139, 1150, 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736. • Confidential financial information given to a bank. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 656, 125 Cal. Rptr. 553. • A diary or similar private papers. Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 683, 734, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 775. In civil cas......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Rptr. 2d 689, §15:10 Valles, People v. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 121, 154 Cal. Rptr. 543, §22:70 Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 125 Cal. Rptr. 553, §10:170 Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 468, 189 Cal. R......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT