Moazed v. Wells Fargo Bank CA4/3, G064083

Saloomeh Moazed sued Wells Fargo Bank for allegedly releasing her private financial records in response to a subpoena intended only for her sister's records during separate litigation.
Moazed's complaint asserted claims including negligence, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practices, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Wells Fargo explained it initially believed Saloomeh was subject to the subpoena due to a possible joint account with her sister but later admitted no such joint account existed.
Wells Fargo demurred, arguing that all claims were barred by California's litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47(b)) because the release occurred in response to a court subpoena in active litigation.
The trial court sustained the demurrer, agreeing the litigation privilege applied, and Saloomeh did not file an amended complaint; final judgment was entered in favor of Wells Fargo.
Saloomeh appealed, contending the litigation privilege should not shield the allegedly improper disclosure of her records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the litigation privilege bar Moazed’s claims for disclosure made in response to a subpoena?	Moazed argued her records were not sought by the subpoena and she was not a party to the underlying litigation.	Wells Fargo argued the privilege absolutely protects disclosures made in response to litigation-related subpoenas, even if the disclosure was overbroad or mistaken.	The court held the privilege applied; disclosure made during judicial proceedings, even if mistaken, is protected.
Whether Moazed’s claims survived demurrer on any other legal grounds	Moazed did not successfully argue alternative legal bases to overcome privilege.	Wells Fargo also argued the claims failed independently; the court addressed some but found the privilege dispositive.	The court did not need to reach alternative grounds, as privilege barred all claims.

Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (seminal case broadly interpreting the litigation privilege to bar derivative tort actions stemming from judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings)
Foothill Federal Credit Union v. Superior Court, 155 Cal.App.4th 632 (Cal. App. 2007) (litigation privilege bars claims based on production of documents in response to subpoena, even if production exceeds scope of subpoena)