Alston v. Wainscott CA3
C091532
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- Alston sued Sacramento County and Kathleen Wainscott (custodian of records) alleging they disclosed his mental‑health records and Social Security number in response to a deposition subpoena in an unrelated civil action.
- Plaintiff asserted causes of action for invasion of privacy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Welfare & Institutions Code § 5330, and Civil Code § 1798.85; he later conceded negligence and the § 1798.85 claim.
- Defendants moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), supported by declarations: Wainscott stated she produced “complete medical records” in response to a subpoena, did not identify or redact mental‑health entries or Social Security numbers, and was not instructed to do so. Plaintiff submitted no evidentiary declarations.
- Trial court found defendants’ conduct was litigation‑related (protected activity) and that Civil Code § 47(b) litigation privilege barred plaintiff’s claims; the motion to strike was granted and attorneys’ fees awarded.
- On appeal, Alston argued (1) no pretrial judicial determination authorized release of mental‑health records, (2) defendants’ acts invaded privacy and thus were not protected speech, and (3) defendants’ conduct was criminal. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Alston's Argument | Wainscott/County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ production in response to a subpoena is protected activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute | Production of confidential records is not protected free‑speech/petition activity | Production in connection with litigation (response to subpoena) is litigation‑related protected activity | Court: Yes — production in response to a subpoena is litigation‑related activity under § 425.16 (first prong satisfied) |
| Whether plaintiff showed a probability of prevailing on his claims (second prong) | Claims survive because statutes protect mental‑health records and SSNs; litigation privilege should not bar statutory protections | Litigation privilege (Civ. Code § 47(b)) and lack of evidence defeat plaintiff’s claims | Court: No — plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence and litigation privilege precludes recovery |
| Whether a pretrial judicial determination (sealed submission/ court review) was required before release of mental‑health records | Argues statutes/cases require court to review/limit compelled disclosure of psychotherapist records before release | No motion to quash was filed; a subpoena compels production and functions as litigation‑related process; plaintiff forfeited new pretrial‑determination argument on appeal | Court: Forfeited at trial; in any event, plaintiff did not raise argument below, so appellate court does not consider it |
| Whether alleged illegality/criminality of conduct removes anti‑SLAPP protection | Anti‑SLAPP statute inapplicable if conduct illegal (citing Flatley/Castleman) | Plaintiff did not show illegality or criminal conduct tied to this production; vague statutory citations and no supporting evidence | Court: No merit — plaintiff failed to demonstrate illegal conduct or evidence to defeat anti‑SLAPP; arguments raised late or without record support were rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, 7 Cal.5th 871 (describing SLAPPs and instructing broad construction of § 425.16)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (illegal‑conduct exception to anti‑SLAPP analyzed)
- Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc., 17 Cal.App.5th 245 (acts invading privacy may fall outside § 425.16 protection)
- Corenbaum v. Lamkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (subpoena may be treated as equivalent to court order for production)
- Castleman v. Sagaser, 216 Cal.App.4th 481 (discussion of limits on anti‑SLAPP where underlying conduct is illegal)
- Sheley v. Harrop, 9 Cal.App.5th 1147 (standard and two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis explained)