194 Cal. App. 4th 750
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Petitioner Shawna Doe was raped by Andrew Luster after he incapacitated her with gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB).
- Doe obtained a $19 million civil judgment against Luster in 2003; Luster’s bankruptcy did not discharge it.
- Doe filed a 2009 action against Elizabeth Luster (as trustee for multiple trusts) and Luster Investments, alleging fraudulent transfers.
- Doe filed the complaint under a fictitious name to preserve anonymity as a rape victim.
- Elizabeth Luster sought to strike Doe’s complaint for misuse of a fictitious name; discovery was propounded and Doe’s responses largely consisted of objections with no verifications in Doe’s true name.
- The trial court ordered Doe to provide verifications in her true name and imposed sanctions; Doe filed a petition for writ of mandate, which was granted by the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a plaintiff using a fictitious name verify in their real name. | Doe may verify using the fictitious name. | Verifications must be signed by the true name. | No; verification may be signed with the fictitious name; court reversed. |
| Sanctions tied to failure to verify in true name—proper basis? | Sanctions tied to verifications in true name were improper. | Sanctions partly justified based on discovery conduct. | Remand for reconsideration of sanctions not clearly attributable to failure to verify. |
| Standard of review for discovery orders in writ proceedings | Abuse of discretion standard applies; extraordinary review warranted when harm to privileges occurs. | Court reaffirmed improper imposition of true-name verifications and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist., 188 Cal.App.4th 758 (Cal. App. 2010) (recognizes verification may use fictitious name for purposes of litigation under protective rules)
- Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 155 Cal.App.4th 1485 (Cal. App. 2007) (discovery orders reviewed for abuse of discretion and extraordinary writ when privileges are at stake)
- In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, 73 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Cal. App. 1999) (defines ‘subscribe’ to mean signing with one’s own hand; supports intent of perjury provisions)