SANDOVAL vs SUTTER HEALTH A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al.

Sutter was seeking the police report Plaintiff had made regarding the sexual assault in this case, and mistyped the date. Defense counsel clarified that Sutter found a reference in Ms. Sandoval’s medical records to an allegation of rape by her spouse, and the subpoena was intended to seek the police report and records related to that allegation in order to attack the cause and extent of Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages. Plaintiff responded that such information is specifically disallowed by the rape shield laws and Evidence Code section 1106. After the parties were unable to resolve their dispute, this motion followed.

Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena on the ground that it seeks inadmissible information in violation of Evidence Code section 1106 and infringes upon her right to privacy.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, the “court, upon motion reasonably made, by the party ... may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the parties, the witness, the consumer, or the employee from unreasonable demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the witness, consumer, or employee.”

Evidence Code section 1106 provides:

“(a) In any civil action alleging conduct which constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific instances of the plaintiff’s sexual conduct, or any of that evidence, is not admissible by the defendant in order to:

(1) Prove consent by the plaintiff.

(2) Prove absence of injury suffered by the plaintiff, unless the injury alleged by the plaintiff is in the nature of loss of consortium.

(3) Attack the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony on consent or the absence of injury suffered by the plaintiff.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000165: SANDOVAL vs SUTTER HEALTH A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Department 16C

Plaintiff insists the subpoena violates the prohibition set forth in section 1106 because Sutter was clear during the parties’ meet-and-confer communications that it was seeking the information to disprove Plaintiff’s emotional distress injury in this case. Namely, that if the subsequent rape by Plaintiff’s spouse was worse than Nweke’s assault, then it would mitigate her damages claim.

Sutter argues that Plaintiff conflates admissibility with discoverability. The Court agrees that Evidence Code section 1106 is not a discovery statute and does not govern the scope of permissible discovery. However, Evidence Code section 1106 remains relevant to the determination of whether the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. If any information that might be obtained through discovery would be barred from admission at trial by Evidence Code section 1106, it follows that the discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Sutter asserts that the subpoena does not seek records that would be barred from admission by section 1106 because consent is not at issue and Sutter is not seeking to prove absence of injury. Instead, Sutter maintains “[t]he question the records bear upon is a different one: what caused the emotional distress Plaintiff claims to be suffering, and to what extent that distress is attributable to the conduct alleged against Defendants as opposed to an independent, subsequent traumatic event.” (Opposition at 4:18-20.) Sutter contends that Plaintiff cannot foreclose an inquiry into whether a discrete, subsequent traumatic event is a contributing source of her emotional distress.

Sutter’s argument ignores the fact that Plaintiff’s claimed injury is emotional distress. Although Sutter may not be attempting to prove that the alleged incident did not cause Plaintiff any emotional distress, the purpose of the discovery is to try to reduce Plaintiff’s claimed injury and attack her credibility regarding the extent of her injury. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that Sutter is not seeking the discovery to prove absence of injury or challenge Plaintiff’s credibility regarding the same, which is barred by section 1106.

Further, in a civil action involving sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, a party may not obtain discovery as to the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with other individuals than the alleged perpetrator unless, by noticed motion, the party seeking discovery establishes specific facts demonstrating good cause for the discovery, that the matter sought to be discovered is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000165: SANDOVAL vs SUTTER HEALTH A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Department 16C

relevant, and that the discovery requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.220.) This statute is equally applicable to instances of voluntary sexual conduct and other instances of sexual assault. (Knoettgen v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 11, 14.) While Sutter argues good cause supports the discovery, Sutter has not sought the discovery via a noticed motion and, therefore, has not followed the statutory procedure outlined in section 2017.220 to potentially obtain the discovery.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED because the Court is not persuaded the opposition was made in bad faith or without substantial justification.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000165: SANDOVAL vs SUTTER HEALTH A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Department 16C

to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL- SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 54 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***