State of California v. Superior Court CA4/1 (2014) · DecisionDepot
State of California v. Superior Court CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Oct 10, 2014 No. D065664Unpublished
Filed 10/10/14 State of California v. Superior Court CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., D065664
Petitioners, (Imperial County Super. Ct. No. ECU07069) v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IMPERIAL COUNTY,
Respondent;
JERRY RABB et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
Petition for writ of mandate from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial
County. Juan Ulloa, Judge. Petition granted.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Richard F. Wolfe and Paul T. Hammerness,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Terry L. Singleton and Horacio Barraza for Real Parties in Interest.
In this personal injury case, Jerry Rabb sued the State of California and Tony Lee
Royer, a State of California employee, (together, Defendants) for injuries resulting from a
vehicle collision. The writ proceedings arose in response to the trial court's order
denying Defendants' request to compel Rabb to answer deposition questions regarding his
methamphetamine use and any related treatment. Defendants argued the evidence was
relevant to causation and damages. We conclude the trial court erred in denying
Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 554, 560 (Fremont).) Where a
plaintiff puts a factual issue in dispute, he either waives his privilege against self-
incrimination or must forego the issue in dispute. (Fremont, at p. 560 [where plaintiff
8
initiated an action to recover under his fire insurance policy, he waived his privilege
against self-incrimination as to factual issues relevant to policy's arson exclusion];
Hartbrodt, at pp. 174-175 [where plaintiff brought action stemming from oral agreement
and had recording of alleged oral agreement but refused to disclose it based on Fifth
Amendment privilege, court forced disclosure of the recording finding that plaintiff
waived privilege against self-incrimination]; Newson v. City of Oakland (1974) 37
Cal.App.3d 1050, 1055 [where plaintiff asserted a claim for lost wages and placed his tax
records at issue, the court rejected plaintiff's assertion of the privilege against self-
incrimination pertaining to his failure to file tax returns].) Courts have enforced similar
waivers of other privileges. For example, in Wilson v. Superior Court (1976) 63
Cal.App.3d 825, 830, the court held that where "plaintiff has placed in issue the existence
and the content of her tax returns and the tax consequences of the computations thereon,"
plaintiff waived the privilege accorded to tax records. Similarly, in City & County of S.F.
v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227, 231, the court stated a physician-patient
privilege is waived when plaintiff places his physical condition in issue by filing an
action for personal injuries.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude under the circumstances of this
case, Rabb's methamphetamine use and treatment is relevant to his loss of earning
capacity claim and to comparative fault if it is an open issue in the case. Rabb cannot
continue to assert the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent disclosure of this
relevant evidence. Accordingly, Rabb must answer deposition questions related to his
methamphetamine use and treatment.
9
DISPOSITION
Let a writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its January 24,
2014, order denying the motion to compel answers to deposition questions and enter an
order granting the motion. The stay issued on March 27, 2014, is vacated. Defendants
are entitled to costs in the writ proceeding.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion to compel deposition testimony regarding the plaintiff's methamphetamine use, as such information is relevant to the plaintiff's claims for loss of earning capacity and potential comparative fault. Furthermore, by initiating a civil action for damages, the plaintiff waived his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding these relevant factual issues.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to compel deposition testimony regarding a plaintiff's methamphetamine use and treatment.
Whether a plaintiff in a personal injury action waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding relevant evidence by seeking damages for loss of earning capacity.
Disposition. granted
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude the trial court erred in denying Defendants' motion to compel as Rabb's methamphetamine use is relevant to his loss of earning capacity claim and possibly to comparative fault.”
“Rabb cannot be permitted to insist on "having his cake and eating it too" by asserting a claim for negligence and seeking damages for a purportedly large loss of future earnings while denying Defendants crucial information to evaluate and refute his claims.”