The title of this blog is a quote from the most basic tenant of the 2016 Discovery Act found in Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010 titled Matters Subject to Discovery which reads:
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” [Emphasis added]
The courts and the treatises liberally construe this statute and a party’s right to obtain the identity and location of witnesses.
Weil and Brown’s California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2017) at 8:82 and 8:83 reads as follows:
[8:82] “Any discoverable matter”: Section 2017.010 et seq. Includes witnesses with “knowledge of any discoverable matter” . . . i.e., fact or opinion [Gonzales v. Sup. Ct. (City of San Fernando), supra, 33 CA4th at 1546, 39 CR2d at 901 (citing text)]
[8:83] Credibility: information regarding the credibility of witnesses is also discoverable: e.g., grounds for impeachment evidence of bias, etc. The credibility of their statements or testimony is itself “relevant to the subject matter.”
California Civil Discovery Practice Fourth Edition (2017) states:
The identity and location of persons who are not experts but who may have Knowledge of any discoverable matter is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and is discoverable. CCP §2017.010; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 C4th 360, 374
“Our discovery recognizes that ‘the identity and location of persons having [discoverable] knowledge’ are proper subjects of civil discovery”: contact information about identity of class members generally discoverable.
Such persons may be actual witnesses to an event in dispute, or they may have knowledge that is based on heresay See Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 CA2d 6, 12; City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1958) 161 CA2d 653, 656
In some cases, the identity of persons who have no information on the specific facts of a case may still be relevant to a claim regarding the opposing party’s regular business practices . . . Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 C3d 785.
In the case of Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 CA4th 1242, the Second District Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of right of privacy for third parties stating:
The fact that we generally consider residential telephone and address information private does not mean that the individuals would not want it disclosed under these circumstances. ‘While it is unlikely that the employees anticipated broad dissemination of their contact information when they gave it . . . they may reasonably be supposed to want their information disclosed to counsel whose communications in the course of investigating the claims asserted in this lawsuit may alert them to similar claims they may be able to assert. . .
Here, just as in Pioneer, the requested information, while personal, is not particularly sensitive, as it is merely contact information, not medical or financial details, political affiliations, sexual relationships, or personnel information (See, e.g., Pioneer supra, 40 Cal.4th at 372-373; Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1004 [101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 341].) This is basic civil discover . . . Nothing could be more ordinary in discovery than finding out the location of identified witnesses so that they may be contacted and additional investigation performed. (Planned Parenthood, supra, 83 Cal App. t p. 359 [home addresses and telephone numbers are ‘routinely produced during discovery”].) As the Supreme Court pointed out in Pioneer, the information sought by petitioners here–the location of witnesses –is generally discoverable, and it is neither unduly personal nor overly intrusive. (Pioneer, at p. 373.)
Indeed, it is only under unusual circumstances that the courts restrict discovery of nonparty witnesses’ residential contract information.
Discovery may be prohibited where the information violates the right to privacy and is not necessary to the prosecution of the matter. [Emphasis added]
RULE OF THE DAY: You have the right to discover the identity and location of witnesses barring unusual circumstances and the information not being necessary to prosecute your case.