N/A
to enforce their inspection rights, section 1603 specifically states in granting the director’s request the superior court may impose “just and proper conditions” on its order. The Havlicek court relied on this language as the basis for the authority to impose conditions, such as a protective order.
Here, section 17704.10 does not include any language supporting the imposition of a protective order. Section 17704.10, subdivision (f), is the statutory provision that allows a member to bring a court case to enforce their inspection rights. That subdivision provides, “In addition to the remedies provided in Sections 17713.06 and 17713.07 and any other remedies, a court of competent jurisdiction may enforce the duty of making and mailing or delivering the information and financial statements required by this section and, for good cause shown, extend the time therefor.”
Nothing in this language authorizes the court to impose conditions. Moreover, Respondents have not convinced the court of the need for a protective order. Accordingly, Respondents’ request for a protective order is DENIED, but Petitioner is cautioned that the misuse of the documents and information he obtains may subject him to liability for any damages or injuries he might cause.
Finally, Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is DENIED. Section 17704.10, subdivision (g), authorizes a court to award reasonable expenses and attorney fees if the court finds the failure of the limited liability company to comply with the requirements of Section 17704.10 is without justification. Here, Petitioner is self-represented and therefore has not incurred any attorney fees. Petitioner also has not presented any evidence or specific request for any expenses or costs. Moreover, the court finds there was a legitimate dispute about the access to the records given there was no specific authority on point regarding this specific statute.
Based on the foregoing, Respondent is ordered to produce copies of the records governed by section 17704.10, subdivision (a), and provide Petitioner access during normal business hours to the records governed by section 17704.10, subdivision (b), within 15 days of this ruling.
Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
8. City of Orange CONTINUED TO JUNE 25, 2026, as stated in the June v. Leon 15, 2026 minute order
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”