THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs HEARTBEAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

Category 1: Investigative Discovery, Meeting Minutes, and Complaint Intakes (Exhibits 1- 4). Defendants request judicial notice of Exhibits 1-4 as official acts of the Attorney General.

Exhibit 1 is a document entitled “Investigative Interrogatories” issued by the Office of the Attorney General to Heartbeat International, Inc. in In the Matter of the Investigation of: Crisis Pregnancy Centers Privacy Policies and Practices, dated September 2, 2022. Exhibit 2 is an “Investigative Subpoena” in the same investigation, dated September 2, 2022. The People argue that Exhibits 1-19, all of which reflect actions, communications, or records of the Attorney General’s Office, are irrelevant because they do not show discriminatory effect.

While this argument may have merit standing alone, it does not preclude Defendants’ request. The court therefore takes judicial notice of the Investigative Interrogatories and Investigative Subpoena, 23CV044940: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs HEARTBEAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. 07/27/2026 Court Trial in Department 18 but not the truth of their contents.

Exhibit 3 appears to be a collection of 3 documents: (1) a meeting agenda dated July 27, 2023; (2) minutes of a January 26, 2023 meeting; and (3) one page entitled “BACKGROUND: The DOJ California Reproductive Rights Task Force”. (RJN Exh. 3.) Defendants have not established that any of these documents are an “official act” of the government as defined by Evidence Code 452(c). Defendants also argue for a particular interpretation of the documents, which is not the proper subject of judicial notice. (Reply at 7-9.)

Defendants’ argument that the court should consider the meeting minutes based on National Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo (2024) 602 U.S. 175 is unpersuasive because Vullo does not address substituting judicial notice for evidence of disputed matter. Rather, the Supreme Court considered the issues on a motion to dismiss where “the Court assumes the truth of ‘well-pleaded factual allegations’ and ‘reasonable inference[s]’ therefrom.” (Vullo, 602 U.S. at 181.) Vullo does not address the propriety of judicial notice or the burden of presenting evidence to support affirmative defenses at trial.

The court declines to take judicial notice of Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 4 is described as “complaints received by the California Attorney General’s ‘Crisis Pregnancy Center Complaints’ webpage.” (RJN at 4.) Exhibit 4(A) is a spreadsheet, and Exhibit 4(B) appears to be a collection of medical records. The court declines to take judicial notice of these documents because Defendants have not established the documents are an “official act” of the government as defined by Evidence Code 452(c).

Category 2: Press Releases & Transcripts of Press Conferences (Exhibits 5-10). Defendants contend that Exhibits 5-10 are subject to judicial notice under section 452(h) “because their existence and content is not subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by consulting the official government website to which they were posted.” (RJN at 6.) Exhibit 5 consists of four documents: a May 3, 2022 press release; a May 5, 2022 transcript of a press conference; a May 6, 2022 press release; and a June 1, 2022 transcript of a press conference.

Exhibit 6 includes two documents: a June 24, 2022 press release and a “Reproductive Rights” webpage. Exhibit 7 is an October 25, 2022 press release. Exhibit 8 is a May 2, 2023 press release. Exhibit 9 includes a September 21, 2023 press release and a transcript of a press conference. Exhibit 10 is a June 25, 2024 press release. The court takes judicial notice of the press releases and transcripts of press conferences, but not the truth of their contents nor their interpretation which is subject to reasonable dispute.

Category 3: Emails from the Attorney General’s Office (Exhibits 11-19). Defendants argue that emails between Deputy Attorneys General and non-parties to this lawsuit are judicially noticeable as “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h).) Defendants, however, do not request judicial notice of any “fact” or “proposition” but instead ask the court to consider the contents of the emails “as evidence of the Attorney General’s contemporaneous coordination with abortion-advocacy organizations and his selective enforcement.” (RJN at 7.) Interpretation of a document’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV044940: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs HEARTBEAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. 07/27/2026 Court Trial in Department 18 contents or the underlying reason an email may have been sent or a meeting scheduled are reasonably subject to dispute. Defendants’ RJN as to Exhibits 11-19 is therefore GRANTED IN PART; the court takes judicial notice of the existence of the emails and calendar notices, but not the truth of any statement contained in the documents or any interpretation of the contents.

Category 4: Public University Publications (Exhibits 20-21). Defendants request judicial notice of three pages from a University of California – Davis Health web site (Exhibit 20), and an article by Madeline B. Deutsch, MD, MPH published June 17, 2026 titled Overview of feminizing hormone therapy which apparently is published on the University of California – San Francisco web site (Exhibit 21). The People argue that Exhibit 20, which pertains to the safety of taking acetaminophen during pregnancy, is not relevant. The court agrees that this document is not relevant and declines to take judicial notice.

The court also declines to take judicial notice of Exhibit 21 because Defendants have not established that Dr. Deutsch’s article is a matter that is not reasonably subject to dispute within the meaning of Evidence Code section 452(h). This is evidenced by Defendants’ reply, which argues the content of the Deustch article, a matter that would require evidence to establish a fact rather than judicial notice. (Reply at 4:23-5:10.) Even if the court could take judicial notice of Exhibit 21, it may not be considered for the proposition Defendants request.