FACEBOOK, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, Respondent; DERRICK D. HUNTER et al., Real Parties in Interest.
A144315
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 9/8/15
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. Nos. 13035657, 13035658)
Petitioners moved to quash the subpoenas, objecting under the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA or Act) (
The trial court denied petitioners’ motions to quash and ordered petitioners to produce responsive material for in camera review. Petitioners filed the instant petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition in this court. We issued an order staying the production order and requested opposition. After consideration of Defendants’ answer, and petitioners’ reply thereto, we denied Defendants’ request to dissolve the temporary stay and issued an order requiring the respondent superior court to show cause why the relief requested by petitioners should not be granted. We now grant the petition and direct the trial court to issue an order quashing the subpoenas.
On June 24, 2013, Jaquan Rice, Jr., was killed and B.K., a minor, was seriously injured in a drive-by shooting in the Bayview District of San Francisco. The vehicle used in the shooting was identified by surveillance video. While of poor quality, the video depicts one individual shooting a handgun from the rear passenger window on the driver’s side. A second individual is seen exiting the rear passenger-side door and shooting from behind the rear of the vehicle with a handgun with a large attached magazine. The driver of the vehicle was not visible, but witnesses indicated that a woman was driving. Within minutes of the shooting, prosecution witness Renesha Lee was stopped driving the vehicle. She was the sole occupant.
Hunter’s 14-year-old brother was identified by several eyewitness as one of the shooters, and he confessed to the shooting when questioned by police.4 Hunter’s brother told police that he shot Rice because Rice had repeatedly threatened him in person and in social media postings on Facebook and Instagram. Rice also had “tagged” the boy in a video clip posted on Instagram that depicted guns.
Lee is Sullivan’s former girlfriend. Lee gave varying accounts of the events of June 24, 2013, but ultimately told police that Defendants and Hunter’s brother borrowed her car and took her home prior to the shooting.
In presenting the case to the grand jury, the prosecution contended that Defendants and Hunter’s brother were members of Big Block, a criminal street gang, and that Rice was killed because he was a member of West Mob, a rival gang, and because Rice had publicly threatened Hunter’s brother. In testimony before the grand jury, Inspector Leonard Broberg, a gang expert from the San Francisco Police Department Gang Task Force, opined that the murder and attempted murder were committed for the benefit of Big Block. Broberg testified that “gangsters are now in the 21st century and they have taken on a new aspect of being gangbangers, and they do something called cyber banging. They will actually be gangsters on the internet. They will issue challenges; will show signs of disrespect, whether it’s via images or whether it’s via the written word . . . Facebook, Instagram, Socialcam, Vine . . . [.] [¶] . . . They will disrespect each other in cyberspace.” Broberg described for the grand jury a video posted by Rice on Facebook in which he rapped while giving a tour of his gang neighborhood and pointed out areas where he could be found if rival gang members wanted to find him, including
Defendants were indicted and stand charged with, inter alia, the murder of Rice and the attempted murder of B.K. (
Sullivan’s counsel served subpoenas duces tecum (
Petitioners moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that disclosure of the information sought was barred by the SCA. Defendants opposed, contending that their constitutional rights to present a complete defense, cross-examine witnesses, and a fair trial prevailed over the privacy rights of account holders under the SCA. In an offer of proof as to Lee’s social media records, Sullivan alleged that Lee was the only witness who implicated him in the shootings, that the records would demonstrate Lee was motivated by jealous rage over Sullivan’s involvement with other women, and that Lee had repeatedly threatened others with violence. Sullivan cited examples of postings on what he said was Lee’s Twitter account that included a photograph of Lee holding a gun and making specific threats. In his offer of proof as to Rice’s social media records, Sullivan said review of the records was required to “locate exculpatory evidence” and to confront and cross-examine Broberg. Sullivan
Hearings on the motions to quash were held on January 7 and 22, 2015. The trial court denied petitioners’ motions to quash, and ordered petitioners to produce responsive material for an in camera review by February 27.5 Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court contending that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash, and seeking a stay of the order to produce the requested materials. On February 26, we stayed the production order pending consideration of the petition and requested opposition. Sullivan submitted an answer, in which Hunter joined. On March 30, we issued an order to show cause to the respondent superior court why the relief requested in the petition should not be granted, and we declined Defendants’ request to dissolve the stay. Sullivan filed a return to the order to show cause, in which Hunter joined, and to which petitioners filed a reply.6
II. DISCUSSION
The issues of statutory interpretation and constitutional challenges presented are purely ones of law. We therefore exercise de novo review and accord no deference to the trial court’s ruling. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Sun Pacific Farming Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 619, 632.)
A. Petitioners
Petitioners operate social networking sites. Social network sites are Web-based services that allow individuals to create a public profile, create a list of users with whom to share connections, and view their list of connections and those made by others within the system. (Boyd & Ellison, Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship (2008) 13 J. of Computer-Mediated Comm. 210, 211.)
Facebook was founded in 2004 and is an online social networking service. After registering to use the site, users can create a user profile, add other users
B. The SCA
The SCA is a part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Pub.L. No. 99-508 (Oct. 21, 1986) 100 Stat. 1860). (See Stuckey & Ellis, Internet and Online Law (2015) § 5.02[4], p. 5-18.1 (rel. # 37).) “The [Electronic Communications] Privacy Act creates a zone of privacy to protect internet subscribers from having their personal information wrongfully used and publicly disclosed by ‘unauthorized private parties.’ ” (In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC (E.D.Va. 2008) 550 F.Supp.2d 606, 610.) Congress’s intention in enacting the SCA was to protect from disclosure private, personal information that happens to be stored electronically. (AOL, at p. 610, citing Sen.Rep. No. 99-541, p. 3 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 3555, 3557.)
“The SCA declares that, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, ‘a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service . . . .’ ( . . .
“The SCA enumerates several exceptions to the rule that service providers may not disclose the contents of stored messages. Among the disclosures authorized are those that are incidental to the provision of the intended service (see . . .
In O’Grady, Apple Computer sought and obtained authority from the trial court, inter alia, to subpoena information from an e-mail service provider for a Web site publisher in order to identify the source of unauthorized publication of Apple’s confidential product information. The trial court denied the provider’s request for a protective order. (O’Grady, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1431.) Construing the absence of any exception for civil discovery subpoenas in the text of the statute as intentional, the Sixth District reversed and held that the subpoena to the e-mail service provider “cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the [SCA].” (Id. at pp. 1432, 1447.) Federal decisions are in accord. (See Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc. (C.D.Cal. 2012) 885 F.Supp.2d 987, 991–992 [“[t]he SCA does not contain an exception for civil discovery subpoenas”]; Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc. (C.D.Cal. 2010) 717 F.Supp.2d 965, 976 [same]; In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, supra, 550 F.Supp.2d at p. 611 [“the clear and unambiguous language of § 2702 . . . does not include an exception for the disclosure of electronic communications pursuant to civil discovery subpoenas”]; Flagg v. City of Detroit (E.D.Mich. 2008) 252 F.R.D. 346, 350 [“§ 2702 . . . lacks any language that explicitly authorizes a service provider to divulge the contents of a communication pursuant to a subpoena or court order”]; Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 253 F.R.D. 256, 264 [“§ 2702 contains no exception for disclosure of [private videos and data revealing their contents] pursuant to civil discovery requests”].)
In the criminal context, the SCA provides for disclosure of the content of an electronic communication to a governmental agency, without notice to the subscriber or customer, “only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction.” (
communication begin to diminish, the Fourth Amendment must recognize and protect nascent ones that arise.” (Warshak, at p. 286.)
The SCA provides no direct mechanism for access by a criminal defendant to private communication content, and “California’s discovery laws cannot be enforced in a way that compels . . . disclosures violating the Act.” (Negro v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 879, 889; id. at p. 888; see O’Grady, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1451 [enforcing civil subpoenas to obtain identities of sources of published content from e-mail service providers would violate SCA and offend the principle of federal supremacy].)
Defendants insist that, notwithstanding constraints of the SCA, the subpoenaed materials are necessary to ensure their right to present a complete
C. Criminal Defense Discovery
“There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and . . . ‘[t]he Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded . . . .’ ” (Weatherford v. Bursey (1977) 429 U.S. 545, 559; see United States v. Ruiz (2002) 536 U.S. 622, 629; Wardius v. Oregon (1973) 412 U.S. 470, 474.) In California, at least as to nonprivileged information, “[t]he defendant generally is entitled to discovery of information that will assist in his defense or be useful for impeachment or cross-examination of adverse witnesses.” (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 953.)
1. Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects both the right of confrontation and the right of compulsory process: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Both clauses are binding on the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Pointer v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400, 403–406 [confrontation clause]; Washington v. Texas (1967) 388 U.S. 14, 17–19 [compulsory process clause].)
a. Confrontation/Cross-Examination
“The Confrontation clause provides two types of protections for a criminal defendant: the right physically to face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct cross-examination.” ( Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987) 480 U.S. 39, 51 (plur. opn. Powell, J.) (Ritchie), citing Delaware v. Fensterer (1985) 474 U.S. 15, 18–19.)
In Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308, 320–321 (Davis), the Supreme Court found a violation of the confrontation clause in a trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to impeach at trial the credibility of a key prosecution witness with the witness’s probationary status resulting from a juvenile delinquency adjudication. The trial court granted a prosecution protective order, precluding cross-examination concerning the witness’s juvenile record, on the basis that the records were confidential under Alaska law. (Id. at p. 311 & fns. 1, 2.) Noting that the “primary interest” secured by the right of confrontation is the right of cross-examination (id. at p. 315), the Supreme Court found that the state’s policy interest in protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record “cannot require yielding of so vital a constitutional right as the effective cross-examination for bias of an adverse witness.” (Id. at p. 320.)
Subsequently, in Ritchie, the Supreme Court considered the application of Davis to pretrial discovery. While no majority consensus emerged concerning the proper application of the confrontation clause to the pretrial discovery issue presented, four justices expressed the view that “the right to confrontation is a trial right . . . .” (Ritchie, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 52 (plur. opn. of Powell, J.); People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1117, 1126 (Hammon).) The defendant, Ritchie, was convicted of various sexual offenses with his minor daughter. Prior to trial, Ritchie attempted to subpoena confidential records from a state protective services agency which had investigated the abuse allegations. The agency refused to comply with the subpoena, claiming that the records were privileged under Pennsylvania law. Ritchie argued that he was entitled to information in the agency file because it might contain the names of favorable witnesses, as well as other, unspecified exculpatory evidence. The trial judge declined to order production. (Ritchie, at pp. 43–45.) The high court of Pennsylvania concluded that “Ritchie, through his lawyer, [was] entitled to review the entire file to search for any useful evidence.” (Id. at p. 46, fn. omitted.) Applying a due process analysis, the Supreme Court majority rejected the idea that a defendant’s right to discover exculpatory evidence would include “unsupervised authority to search through the [agency] files.” (Ritchie, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 59; see id. at pp. 58–61 [concluding in camera review of agency file sufficient to protect Ritchie’s interests].)
A plurality of the Supreme Court also rejected the view that the trial court interfered with Ritchie’s confrontation clause right of cross-examination by denying him pretrial access to information he contended was necessary to
at pp. 53–54; see Weatherford v. Bursey, supra, 429 U.S. at pp. 547, 559 [no due process violation in prosecution’s pretrial failure to reveal identity of undercover informant whose trial testimony was unfavorable to the defendant].)
Our own Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to recognize a Sixth Amendment right to defense pretrial discovery of otherwise privileged or confidential information. In People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, the defense subpoenaed psychiatric records of a witness in a capital murder case, arguing entitlement to any information in the records affecting the competence or credibility of the witness in order to “ ‘fairly cross-examine’ ” her. (Id. at p. 516.) The trial court conducted in camera review of the records and provided limited disclosure. The defendant, citing Ritchie, contended that limited pretrial disclosure of the psychiatric records prejudicially undermined his right to cross-examine the witness effectively at trial. (Webb, at p. 517Ritchie as broadly as defendant urged, and questioned whether the defendant had any constitutional right to examine the records at all, even if material, in light of the strong policy protecting a patient’s treatment history. “Simply stated, it is not clear whether or to what extent the confrontation or compulsory process clauses of the Sixth Amendment grant pretrial discovery rights to the accused.” (Id. at pp. 517–518.)
Our high court again considered the extent of pretrial defense discovery of otherwise privileged information in Hammon, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1117. In that case, the defense served subpoenas duces tecum on psychotherapists who had treated the complaining witness in a sexual molestation case, claiming the records would be necessary to challenge the witness’s credibility. The trial court granted the People’s motion to quash the subpoenas. (Id. at pp. 1119–1121.) Noting the lack of a majority consensus in Ritchie on the
In declining to extend a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation and cross-examination to authorize pretrial disclosure of privileged information, our Supreme Court expressly overruled a series of intermediate appellate cases interpreting Davis, supra, 415 U.S. 308, to require pretrial disclosure of privileged information when a defendant’s need for the information outweighed the confidentiality interest. (Hammon, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1123.) The Hammon court found that People v. Reber (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 523 (permitting pretrial discovery of a complaining witness’s psychotherapy records) and cases following that decision were “not correct.” (Hammon, at p. 1123.) “In authorizing disclosure before trial . . . Reber went farther than Davis required, with insufficient justification.” (Ibid.) “We do not . . . see an adequate justification for taking such a long step in a direction the United States Supreme Court has not gone.” (Id. at p. 1127.) The high court recognized that at trial, a trial court might be called upon to balance a defendant’s need for cross-examination and the policies supporting a statutory or constitutional privilege, but also noted that entertaining such requests pretrial—when the trial court would not typically have sufficient information to conduct the inquiry—presented a serious risk of unnecessary invasion of statutory privilege. (Ibid.)
In Alvarado v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1121, the trial court issued protective orders in a jail homicide case, permitting the prosecution to withhold the names of witnesses, both pretrial and during testimony at trial. (Id. at pp. 1128–1130.) The Supreme Court found the order valid to the extent it permitted pretrial nondisclosure of the witnesses’ identities, rejecting the argument that nondisclosure violated the defendants’ constitutional rights to due process of law and to confront the witnesses against them.9 (Id. at pp. 1132, 1134–1136; see Weatherford v. Bursey, supra, 429 U.S.
at pp. 559–561 [no constitutional violation where prosecution surprised the defendant at trial by calling to the stand a previously undisclosed witness].) In People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, our high court again approved a trial court order, issued pursuant to
In sum, there is little, if any, support for Defendants’ claim that the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment mandates disclosure of otherwise privileged information for purposes of a defendant’s pretrial investigation of the prosecution’s case.
b. Compulsory Process
We find even less support for Defendants’ contention that the compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment separately authorizes the trial court’s order here. The Supreme Court “has had little occasion to discuss the contours of the Compulsory Process Clause.” (Ritchie, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 55.) The cases provide that “at a minimum . . . criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt.” (Id. at p. 56, italics added, citing Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284, Cool v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 100, and Washington v. Texas, supra, 388 U.S. 14.) The Ritchie majority concluded that “compulsory process provides no greater protections in this area than
those afforded by due process,” and that claims such as this are better evaluated “under the broader protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” addressing the fundamental fairness of trials. (Ritchie, at p. 56.)
Our own Supreme Court has rejected a claim that a defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel when he was denied access to an FBI database for use in cross-examination of a prosecution expert, allegedly thereby compromising his right to present a meaningful defense, a fair opportunity to be heard, and the constitutional right to reliable factfinding. (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1233–1234Prince argued that lack of access to the database “ ‘depriv[ed] [him] of evidence clearly bearing on the credibility of key prosecution witnesses.’ ” (Id. at p. 1234.) Finding it unnecessary to address the claim on evidence in the record, the court nevertheless noted that “[t]o the extent defendant’s claim concerns pretrial discovery and is based upon the confrontation or compulsory process clauses of the Sixth Amendment, it is on a weak footing. ‘As we have previously observed, in light of the divided views of the justices of the Supreme Court . . . it is not at all clear “whether or to what extent the confrontation or compulsory process clauses of the Sixth Amendment grant pretrial discovery rights to the accused.” ’ ” (Prince, at p. 1234 & fn. 10; see People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 982–983 [rejecting a claim that failure to disclose witness’s misdemeanor conviction prior to guilt phase of capital trial deprived defendant of compulsory process and confrontation rights, and declining to “recognize a Sixth Amendment violation when a defendant is denied discovery that results in a significant impairment of his ability to investigate and cross-examine a witness”].)
2. Fifth Amendment and Due Process
Defendants and amici curiae argue that failure to provide pretrial discovery would deny Defendants their due process rights to meaningfully prepare and present a defense to the charges against them. They more broadly assert that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it denies them access to information available to the prosecution through search warrant, subpoena, or court order.
To prevail on a claim that a statute violates due process, a defendant “must carry a heavy burden. The courts will presume a statute is constitutional unless its unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears; all presumptions and intendments favor its validity. [Citations.] In the due process context, defendant must show that [the statute] offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 912–913; see Patterson v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197, 201–202.) Fundamental principles of justice are those “ ‘ “ ‘which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions’ [citation] and which define ‘the community’s sense of fair play and decency.’ ” ’ ” (Falsetta, at p. 913, quoting Dowling v. United States (1990) 493 U.S. 342, 353.)
The observation of the United States Supreme Court that “ ‘[t]he Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded . . . .’ ” (Wardius v. Oregon, supra, 412 U.S. at p. 474; Weatherford v. Bursey, supra, 429 U.S. at p. 559) has been repeated often by our own high court. (People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 259; People v. Maciel, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 508; People v. Valdez, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 109–110.) In City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, our Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to
D. Other Access to Information and Reciprocity
As petitioners correctly note, Defendants are not wholly precluded from access to much of the information that they now seek by subpoena. The prosecution has obtained at least some of Rice’s Facebook and Instagram communications pursuant to search warrant, as authorized by the SCA.11 Defendants do not suggest why they would not be entitled to receive copies of those communications, either as general criminal discovery required under
(See U.S. v. Pierce (2d Cir. 2015) 785 F.3d 832, 841–842 [declining to
Defendants respond that access only to records that tend to support the prosecution’s theory of the case does not provide them with the complete materials necessary to present a full defense. They argue the SCA establishes “a one-sided, arbitrary, and unconstitutional preference that the government, but not the defense, is entitled to access to relevant electronic evidence.” They assert that such a disparity in treatment is prohibited by Wardius v. Oregon, supra, 412 U.S. 470. In Wardius, the Unites States Supreme Court struck down a state statute that required the defendant to disclose the names of his alibi witnesses, but did not require the prosecution to disclose the names of its witnesses. (Id. at pp. 471–472 & fn. 3.) “[A]lthough the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded [citation], it does speak to the balance of forces between the accused and his accuser.” (Id. at p. 474.) The court held that “in the absence of a strong showing of state interests to the contrary, discovery must be a two-way street.” (Id. at p. 475.) The discovery in Wardius, however, did not involve disclosure of privileged or confidential information, and a variety of investigative and evidence collection procedures are routinely available to governmental agencies that are not provided to a criminal defendant. The prosecution, for example, can obtain search warrants and compel attendance of witnesses before a grand jury. Because the concern of the due process clause is “the right of the defendant to a fair trial,” the focus of the reciprocity inquiry under the due process clause is whether any lack of reciprocity “ ‘interferes with the defendant’s ability to secure a fair trial.’ ” (People v. Hansel (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1211, 1221.) Thus, “mere mechanical repetition of the word ‘reciprocity’ is not
In People v. Valdez, supra, 55 Cal.4th 82, our Supreme Court rejected a defendant’s challenge to protective orders entered in a gang-related homicide case, delaying disclosure of the identity of prosecution witnesses and permitting the prosecution to attend and transcribe defense interviews of prosecution witnesses. (Id. at pp. 93–94, 119–120.) Valdez challenged the order authorizing prosecution attendance at witness interviews on due process grounds, alleging that, by granting this discovery to the prosecution “ ‘but not providing [him] with a reciprocal right, the trial court upset the “balance of forces between the accused and [the] accuser,” in violation of [his] right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.’ ” (Id. at p. 120.) The Supreme Court disagreed. “The inquiry is not whether ‘the procedures available to the defendant . . . precisely mirror[ed] those available to the prosecution,’ but whether the defendant received ‘a full and fair opportunity to present’ a defense and whether the rules at issue ‘tilt[ed] the balance toward the state to any significant degree.’ [Citation.] . . . [T]o the extent there was any nonreciprocity, the prosecution made ‘a strong showing of state interests’ to justify the trial court’s order.” (Id. at pp. 120–121.)
Defendants insist the SCA must yield to their statutory right to obtain records necessary to investigate a case and present a compete defense through use of a criminal subpoena duces tecum. (
Defendants are correct that issuance of a subpoena duces tecum pursuant to
duces tecum to private persons “provides no basis for overriding a statutory and constitutional privilege.” (Id. at p 1128.)
Moreover, accepting Defendants’ argument would lead to an anomalous result. In order to obtain third party confidential information protected by the SCA, a governmental entity would have to obtain a search warrant, authorized in advance by a magistrate on a sufficient showing of probable cause (
In sum, we find no support for the trial court’s order for pretrial production of information otherwise subject to the SCA’s protections. The consistent and clear teaching of both United States Supreme Court and California Supreme Court
Notes
jurisprudence is that a criminal defendant’s right to pretrial discovery is limited, and lacks any solid constitutional foundation. Simply alleging that the material they seek might be helpful to their defense does not meet Defendants’ burden to show that the SCA is unconstitutional in denying them access to protected information at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly we grant the writ and direct that the trial court vacate its order.
We emphasize that our ruling is limited to the pretrial context in which the trial court’s order was made.16 Nothing in this opinion would preclude Defendants from seeking at trial the production of the materials sought here (or petitioners again seeking to quash subpoenas), where the trial court would be far better equipped to balance the Defendants’ need for effective cross-examination and the policies the SCA is intended to serve.17
III. DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its January 22, 2015 order denying petitioners’ motion to quash the subpoenas for the social media records of Jaquan Rice, Jr., and Renesha Lee, and to thereafter enter a new and different order granting petitioners’ motion to quash. The previously issued stay shall dissolve upon issuance of the remittitur. (
BRUINIERS, J.
WE CONCUR:
JONES, P. J.
MARGULIES, J.*
* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
A144315
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Nos. 13035657 and 13035658, Bruce E. Chan, Judge.
Perkins Coie, James G. Snell and Sunita Bali for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Jose Pericles Umali for Real Party in Interest Derrick D. Hunter.
Susan Kaplan and Janelle E. Caywood for Real Party in Interest Lee Sullivan.
Jeff Adachi, Public Defender (San Francisco), Matt Gonzalez, Chief Attorney, and Dorothy Bischoff, Deputy Public Defender, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent and Real Parties in Interest.
Stephen P. Lipson, Public Defender (Ventura), and Michael C. McMahon, Chief Deputy Public Defender, for California Public Defenders Association and Public Defender of Ventura County as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.
Donald E. Landis, Jr., Assistant Public Defender (Monterey); Law Offices of J.T. Philipsborn and John T. Philipsborn for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.