Motion for Order Releasing Records
Petitioner Bruce Martinez’s Motion to Compel Discovery Order to Disclose Location (ROA 4) is DENIED. The motion fails to provide any statutory or other legal authority authorizing the motion. The only authority cited within the motion is a reference to “Brady v. Maryland.” The court presumes this reference is to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, which holds the prosecution in a criminal trial must disclose exculpatory evidence whether or not a defendant requests it. (Id., at pp. 1196-1197.) The Brady doctrine has no application in this proceeding.
Further, the court cannot determine from the motion the nature of the discovery Petitioner is seeking.
The motion is DENIED. The court directs the clerk to give notice.
6 Nunes – Trust; 30-2024-01396741 Motion for Order Releasing Records
Petitioner Peggy Nunes’ unopposed Motion for Order Authorizing Release of Adult Protective Protective [sic] Services and Long-Term Care Ombudsman Records (ROA 92) is DENIED.
This matter arises out of the Mervin & Juanita Nunes Family Trust (Trust). In the original trust instrument, Petitioner Peggy Nunes (Petitioner) and her brother respondent Mervyn M. Nunes (Respondent) were named as beneficiaries. In the second and third amendments to the Trust, petitioner was omitted as a beneficiary. Petitioner asserts those amendments were the result of undue influence by Respondent. In April 2024, petitioner initiated this proceeding with the petition seeking an order determining the validity of the earlier Trust documents and alleging financial elder abuse.
By the motion before the court this day, Petitioner seeks an order authorizing the release of records relating to her mother, trustor Juanita Nunes, from Orange County and/or Los Angeles County Adult Protective Services and the Orange County Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program for the period October 1, 2013 through December 2023. She seeks all records, including “complaints, intake reports, investigation reports, case notes, findings, communications, referrals and related documentation.” (Motion at 4:11-12.) Petitioner argues the records are directly relevant to the issue of whether her mother might have been vulnerable to undue influence during the time the trust was amended.
Two days before the hearing on the motion, Petitioner submitted a supplemental declaration in support of the motion. “The general rule of motion practice . . . Is that new
evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (
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?”
The court is troubled by certain aspects of this motion. First, at least some of the documents Petitioner seeks are protected from production by law. Pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 15633, reports of elder abuse are confidential and can be disclosed only in certain limited situations, none of which are relevant here. (It is not entirely clear from the statutory language whether the prohibition applies only to the initial reports or whether it extends to investigative notes or findings created in connection with those reports.) By this motion, Petitioner seeks “complaints” and “intake reports” for any claim of abuse made between 2013 and 2023. Accordingly, at least some of the records Petitioner seeks cannot be produced under law.
Second, at least some of the documents Petitioner seeks appear to be completely irrelevant to the issues raised by this proceeding. The petition alleges the Trust was amended in December 2014 and September 2015. Petitioner, however, seeks documents for the period 2013 through December 2023. She provides neither argument nor explanation of why records for the period after September 2015 would be relevant in any way to this proceeding.
Third, Petitioner’s motion does not cite any authority supporting or permitting production of the requested records.
Fourth, the motion does not reflect any attempt by Petitioner to obtain the documents by any method other than this motion. There is no subpoena seeking the records. There is no declaration stating Petitioner has had any communication with the relevant entities regarding production of the records.
Fifth, and most troubling to the court, the motion was not served on the relevant entities who, accordingly, have had no opportunity to state their position regarding production of their records.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED.
If Respondents are directed to give notice.