213 Cal. App. 4th 1480
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Department of Corporations investigates possible CSL violations and issues SDT to Media One requiring document production
- Media One allegedly fails to produce all requested documents, prompting a second administrative subpoena for custodian of records and testimony
- Media One refuses to provide an individual for administrative testimony
- Commissioner seeks order to show cause from superior court to compel compliance
- Trial court orders Media One to produce requested documents and to produce a witness; Media One appeals
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to issue SDT and compel testimony | Media One challenges lack of evidence for compelled production | Commissioner validly exercises statutory authority | Authority undisputed; discovery rights upheld |
| Adequacy and foundation of Dougherty declaration | Dougherty lacked personal knowledge; documents inadmissible | Dougherty had personal knowledge and authenticated documents | Declaration properly foundational; abuse of discretion not shown |
| Business records under hearsay rules | Documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation; not business records | Documents not prepared for litigation; admissible as official records | Documents admissible; not prepared for litigation defense rejected |
| Use of administrative subpoena versus confrontation concerns | Subpoena for testimony circumvents discovery rules | Statutory subpoena authority valid; Melendez-Diaz not controlling here | Subpoena authority proper; no unlawful end run around discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Saxena v. Goffney, 159 Cal.App.4th 316 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (review of evidentiary admissibility under abuse of discretion standard)
- Alvarado v. Anderson, 175 Cal.App.2d 166 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1959) (foundational evidence and authentication principles in evidence law)
- Jazayeri v. Mao, 174 Cal.App.4th 301 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (business records exception and admissibility under hearsay rules; abuse of discretion standard)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (records kept in regular course of business; confrontation clause caveat for sworn statements identical to live testimony)
- The Luckman Partnership, Inc. v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.4th 30 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (authentication of documentary evidence via personal knowledge)