IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY

26CV002658: IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY 06/01/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Compliance with Department of Consumer Affairs/Medical Board Investigational Subpoena Duces Tecum Should Not Be Compelled in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf 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

26CV002658: IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY 06/01/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Compliance with Department of Consumer Affairs/Medical Board Investigational Subpoena Duces Tecum Should Not Be Compelled in Department 8D

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

On March 11, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Regarding Enforcement of Petitioner Christine Lally, in her official capacity as the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California’s (“Petitioner”) Investigative Subpoena (“OSC”), which ordered Respondent Juan Guerrero Bautista (“Respondent”) to show cause why he has not produced documents responsive to the underlying subpoena. The OSC also set a hearing for today's date.

Respondent was served with the OSC on March 12, 2026. On April 30, 2026, Respondent filed a response to the OSC.

Pursuant to Government Code section 11187, if a witness refuses to comply with an administrative subpoena, the department head may petition the superior court in the county in which the hearing is pending for an order compelling the witness to attend and testify or produce the required papers. (Gov't Code § 11187; Brovelli v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 524, 528.)

As set forth in the Petition; in seeking judicial enforcement of an investigational subpoena, the statutory scheme calls for a two-step process. Under Government Code section 11188, the first step is the filing of a petition in conformity with section 11187 to obtain an order issued by the Court directing the recipient of the subpoena to appear before the Court and show cause as to why he or she has not complied with the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV002658: IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY 06/01/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Compliance with Department of Consumer Affairs/Medical Board Investigational Subpoena Duces Tecum Should Not Be Compelled in Department 8D

subpoena.

Subdivision (b) of section 11187 provides:

(b) The petition shall set forth all of the following:

(1) That due notice of the time and place for answering the interrogatories or testifying or the attendance of the person or the production of the papers or other items described in subdivision (e) of Section 11181 was given.

(2) That the person was subpoenaed or required to answer interrogatories in the manner prescribed in this article.

(3) That the person failed and refused to answer the interrogatories or to attend or testify or produce or permit the inspection or copying of the papers or other items required by subpoena before the officer in the cause or proceeding named in the subpoena, or has refused to answer questions propounded to him or her in the course of the investigation or hearing.

The Petition filed on January 27, 2026 meets the requirements set forth in Government Code section 11187. (See Pet., pp. 7:14-8:7.)

When the agency files a petition for an order to compel compliance with a subpoena, the Court enters and order to show cause. (Gov't Code § 11188.) At that hearing, the person to whom the subpoena is directed may present his or her reasons for refusing to attend as the subpoena commands. (See People v. West Coast Shows, Inc. (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 462, 470.) The Court will order compliance with the subpoena if it finds that the subpoena conforms to statutory and constitutional standards.

A hearing on the order to show cause under Government Code section 11188 is a special proceeding (People ex rel. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 526, 538) in which the superior court's jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the subpoena conforms to “legal” and “constitutional” standards. (People ex rel. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 526, 539; Fielder v. Berkeley Properties Co. (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 30, 39.) The court may not address substantive issues because such review would effectively undermine the agency's performance of its statutory duties, usurping the agency's authority. (Hill v. Brisbane

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV002658: IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY 06/01/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Compliance with Department of Consumer Affairs/Medical Board Investigational Subpoena Duces Tecum Should Not Be Compelled in Department 8D

(1944) 66 Cal. App. 2d 15, 20.)

The Court finds that the subpoena was regularly and properly issued and that it seeks information relevant to the investigation. Good cause is established by demonstration to the court “through competent evidence that the particular records [the Department of Consumer Affairs] seeks are relevant and material to its inquiry sufficient for a trial court to independently make a finding of good cause to order the materials disclosed. (Bearman v Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 463, 468.) The Court finds good cause has been established.

Respondent is ordered to comply with the investigative subpoena and produce the requested documents as identified in the subpoena no later than June 3, 2026, unless Petitioner agrees to a later time in writing. Respondent shall certify that the records are accurate and complete.

Failure to obey this order may subject the respondent to contempt of court proceedings. (Gov. Code § 11188.)

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court's signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.