BB-31-b-160
PATRICK SARSFIELD HALLINAN
Hallinan & Blum
345 Franklin Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 861-1151
Attorney for Defendant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PEOPLES TEMPLE OF THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST, a nonprofit corporation, JEAN BROWN, and JAMES McELVANE, Plaintiffs,
v.
TIMOTHY OLIVER STOEN, Defendant.
No. 740531
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT DEPOSITION NOT BE TAKEN
Date: November 7, 1978
Time: 9:30 AM
Departments: 9 Law and Motion
Defendant submits the following points and authorities in support of his motion for a protective order that the deposition scheduled for November 9 and 10 not be taken and for reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees. Alternatively, defendant seeks a protective order that the scope of examination of the deposition be limited to current balances in the name of defendant, and for reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees.
I. ON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT MAY MAKE A DISCOVERY ORDER THAT JUSTICE REQUIRES TO PROTECT THE MOVING PARTY FROM
—–
BB-31-b-161
ANNOYANCE, EMBARRASSMENT, OR OPPRESSION.
A. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2019 (b) (1):
“Upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined or notified to produce books, documents, or other things in her notice, or upon the court’s own motion and after giving counsel an opportunity to be heard, and in either case for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make an order that the deposition not be taken,… or that certain matters shall not be inquired into, or that the scope of the examination shall be limited to certain matters, books, documents, or other things…; or the court may make any other order which justice requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. In granting or refusing such order the court may impose upon the other party or upon the witness the requirement to pay such costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, as the court may deem reasonable.”
II. DISCOVERY IS RESTRICTED TO INFORMATION WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER INVOLVED IN THE PENDING ACTION.
A. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2016 (b):
“Unless otherwise ordered by the court…, the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action… It is not ground for objection that the testimony will be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
B. The concept of subject matter relevancy is not unlimited. Discovery may be denied as being irrelevant if the information sought is so remote from the subject matter of the action that its disclosure would be of little or no practical benefit to the party seeking it. Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 CA2d 813, 9 CR 147, quoted with approval in Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court
—–
BB-31-b-162
(1968) 263 CA2d 12, 69 CR 348. Unless one of the issues in a lawsuit requires apportionment of income or deposits (which is not the situation in the instant case), the only financial records which are relevant are those which show current “financial condition and assets”, and this will be solely on the issue of punitive damages. See Doak v. Superior Court (1968) 257 CA2d 825, 65 CR 193.
III. A PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD ISSUE AGAINST THE PEOPLES TEMPLE DEPOSITION BECAUSE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FAR EXCEEDS CURRENT FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE TIMING SHOWS ITS PURPOSE SOLELY IS TO ANNOY, EMBARRASSED, AND OPPRESS.
A. It is apparent from the face of plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition that it seeks private financial information far beyond current financial condition. The November 9 Notice is addressed to the Custodian of Records of five separate banks and asked for the following information from each:
“Every detail, every entry, every transaction, every deposit and every disbursement relating to this individual [Timothy O. Stoen], either in his own name or as trustee…; complete and entire records relating to all transactions, stocks bought and sold, in the instructions therein and the dates.”
The November 10 Notice asks for “all correspondence.”
There is absolutely no justification for the aforesaid requests. They are designed to oppress the defendant into taking the trouble and expense of preparing and filing a protective order. Past deposits and disbursements, instructions for stock purchases, correspondence – what possible relevance is such information as to defendant’s financial
—–
BB-31-b-163
condition and ability to respond to punitive damages? There is none whatever.
Furthermore, defendant respectfully contends that even asset information is irrelevant at this point. The court’s attention is called to all of the pleadings of plaintiff in this action, which suggests that the whole proceeding is shamful and oppressive. Given the discretion granted to a trial court by CCP § 2019 (b) (1), fairness requires that information which invades a defendant’s financial privacy should be divulgable only after the deposing party has complete[d] in good faith its discovery on issues of liability. The ulterior motors of Peoples Temple is suggested by the fact this is the very first deposition they have sought.
The declaration of defendant attached hereto indicates that the real purpose of Peoples Temple in seeking entries of past financial transactions is to learn the names of people defendant has been dealing with so that threats and other types of pressure can be applied to them in getting defendant to withdraw from the cases he has filed against Peoples Temple. Defendant’s declaration shows his belief in a second oppressive purpose, i.e., for Peoples Temple to gain information for a totally separate lawsuit which it has publicly announced plans to file against defendant, falsely alleging he was an agent of the FBI and CIA while a member of Peoples Temple.
B. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, Defendant respectfully requests the following protective order from the Court:
1. That the deposition of the persons named in the Notices of Deposition for November 9 and 10 not be taken; and
—–
BB-31-b-164
2. That defendant be awarded reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in this proceeding.
Alternatively, defendant respectfully requests that the following protective order be issued:
1. That the scope of examination of the depositions be limited to existing balances in the name of defendant, and that the date of taking such depositions be continued until such time as plaintiff files a notice that it has completed all discovery on questions of liability; and
2. The defendant be awarded reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in this proceeding.
DATED: October 31, 1978.
Respectfully submitted,
PATRICK SARSFIELD HALLINAN
Attorney for Defendant