Diepenbrock v. Brown
208 Cal. App. 4th 743
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Diepenbrock, represented by Veen, sued Kyle Brown for personal injuries and added a punitive damages claim and attorney’s fees after Kyle’s felony DUI conviction.
- Derek Brown, Kyle’s husband, was deposed; his marital privilege was invoked to shield questions about the couple’s finances and other matters.
- The deposition was adjourned after the parties disagreed on the scope of the marital privilege.
- Derek sought a protective order; Diepenbrock and Veen sought to compel answers and sanctions were sought against them.
- The trial court granted the protective order and imposed sanctions of $5,000 against Diepenbrock and Veen; this appeal followed.
- The court held that sanctions were improper because appellants reasonably relied on unsettled authority and there was substantial justification for the opposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sanction judgment is appealable. | Diepenbrock argues the sanctions constitute a final collateral judgment. | Derek asserts appealability as a matter of finality under collateral matters doctrine. | Yes; the sanction judgment is appealable as a final judgment on a collateral matter. |
| Whether the sanction order was proper given substantial justification. | Appellants had substantial justification due to unsettled law on marital privilege and immediate-benefit theory. | Respondents contended the position lacked substantial justification under Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030. | Sanctions must be reversed because appellants had substantial justification; the issue was unsettled law. |
| Whether the court correctly applied the ‘immediate benefit’ marital privilege test. | The privilege did not apply because the relief benefited the community estate. | The privilege could apply under conflicting authority and guidance urged reversible error. | The court correctly found the privilege clear under §973 and sanctions were improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (substantial justification requires law-and-fact grounding for discovery disputes)
- Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (substantial justification in discovery disputes depends on uncertain or novel issues)
- Waters v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 885 (Cal. 1962) (immediate benefit waiver requires direct, immediate liability to apply privilege)
- Hand v. Superior Court, 134 Cal.App.3d 436 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (spouse’s direct interest vs. community property considerations in privilege waiver)
- Duggan v. Superior Court, 127 Cal.App.3d 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (conflicting authority on immediate-benefit test for marital privilege)