Code Details

Code of Civil Procedure – CCP
PART 4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [1855 – 2107] ( Heading of Part 4 amended by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299. )
TITLE 3. OF THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE [1985 – 2015.6] ( Title 3 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 2. Means of Production [1985 – 1997] ( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

The procedures set forth in Section 1985.3 are applicable to a subpoena duces tecum for records containing “personal information,” as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code that are otherwise exempt from public disclosure under a provision listed in Section 7920.505 of the Government Code that are maintained by a state or local agency as defined in Section 7920.510 or 7920.540 of the Government Code. For the purposes of this section, “witness” means a state or local agency as defined in Section 7920.510 or 7920.540 of the Government Code and “consumer” means any employee of any state or local agency as defined in Section 7920.510 or 7920.540 of the Government Code, or any other natural person. Nothing in this section shall pertain to personnel records as defined in Section 832.8 of the Penal Code.

(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 615, Sec. 57. (AB 474) Effective January 1, 2022. Operative January 1, 2023, pursuant to Sec. 463 of Stats. 2021, Ch. 615.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4 Summary

California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 1985.4 extends the privacy protections and procedural requirements of CCP § 1985.3 to subpoenas for certain personal records held by state or local government agencies. This means that when someone seeks “personal information” (as defined in Civil Code § 1798.3) maintained by a state or local agency (as defined in Government Code §§ 7920.510 or 7920.540) that would normally be exempt from public disclosure (under Government Code § 7920.505), they must follow the specific notice and objection procedures outlined in CCP § 1985.3. For the purpose of this section, the “witness” is the government agency, and the “consumer” is any employee of that agency or any other natural person whose records are being sought. It’s important to note that this statute specifically excludes personnel records as defined in Penal Code § 832.8, which typically pertain to peace officers and have their own distinct rules for discovery.

Purpose of Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4

The legislative purpose behind Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4 is to safeguard the privacy rights of individuals when their sensitive personal information is held by state or local government entities and is sought through a subpoena. It addresses the challenge of balancing the need for discovery in legal proceedings with an individual’s right to privacy, especially concerning records that are not publicly accessible. By making the procedures of CCP § 1985.3 applicable, the statute ensures that the “consumer” (the person whose records are sought) receives proper notice of the subpoena and has an opportunity to object before their private information is disclosed. This is crucial because government agencies often maintain a wide array of personal data, including employment, medical, and financial records, which, if improperly disclosed, could lead to significant privacy violations. The statute provides a clear, uniform process for accessing these records while respecting individual privacy.

Real-World Example of Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4

Imagine a personal injury case where a plaintiff, Sarah, was severely injured in a traffic accident caused by a city sanitation worker, Mark, who was on duty. Sarah’s attorney believes that Mark’s employment records with the city—specifically, records of prior driving infractions, disciplinary actions related to vehicle operation, or training deficiencies—might be relevant to proving the city’s negligence in hiring, training, or supervising Mark.

These records contain Mark’s “personal information” and are maintained by the City of Los Angeles (a local agency). They are generally not subject to public disclosure. To obtain these records, Sarah’s attorney must issue a subpoena duces tecum. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4, the attorney cannot simply subpoena the records from the city. Instead, they must follow the procedures of CCP § 1985.3. This means:

1. Notice to Consumer: Sarah’s attorney must notify Mark (the “consumer”) that his employment records are being sought via subpoena. This notice must be served on Mark at least 10 days before the records are scheduled to be produced and 5 days before the subpoena is served on the city.
2. Opportunity to Object: Mark then has the opportunity to object to the release of his records by filing a motion to quash or modify the subpoena, citing privacy concerns or other legal grounds.
3. Service on Witness: Only after the notice period expires, and if no successful objection is made, can the subpoena be properly served on the City of Los Angeles (the “witness”) to produce the requested records.

This process ensures Mark’s privacy rights are protected, giving him a chance to challenge the disclosure of his personal employment information, even though the records are held by his government employer.

Related Statutes

• Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3 – Subpoena of Consumer Records: This is the foundational statute explicitly referenced by CCP § 1985.4. It outlines the specific procedures, including the requirement to serve notice on the “consumer” (the individual whose records are being sought) when subpoenaing personal or employment records from a third-party witness (like a bank, medical provider, or, as extended by § 1985.4, a government agency). It ensures the consumer has an opportunity to object before their records are disclosed.
• Civil Code § 1798.3 – Definitions (Information Practices Act of 1977): CCP § 1985.4 incorporates the definition of “personal information” from this section. Civil Code § 1798.3 broadly defines “personal information” as any information that describes, identifies, or is linked to an individual, including but not limited to, their name, address, telephone number, education, financial matters, medical or employment history. This expansive definition ensures a wide range of sensitive data is protected.
• Government Code § 7920.505 – Records Exempt from Disclosure: This Government Code section lists various provisions under which certain public records are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). CCP § 1985.4 specifically applies to records that fall under these exemptions, reinforcing that while they are not publicly available, they can still be obtained through a subpoena if the proper privacy protections are followed.
• Government Code §§ 7920.510 and 7920.540 – Definitions of State and Local Agency: These sections provide the definitions for “state agency” and “local agency” within the context of the California Public Records Act. CCP § 1985.4 explicitly uses these definitions to identify which governmental entities qualify as a “witness” for the purposes of this statute, ensuring clarity on its scope.
• Penal Code § 832.8 – Peace Officer Personnel Records: This statute defines what constitutes “personnel records” for peace officers. CCP § 1985.4 specifically states that it does *not* pertain to these records. This is significant because peace officer personnel records are subject to stricter and highly specialized discovery rules, primarily governed by Evidence Code §§ 1043-1047 (known as a Pitchess motion), which provide even greater protections for officer privacy.

Case Law Interpreting Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4

As of the current date, readily available published appellate court decisions specifically interpreting the nuances and application of Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4 are not widely found. This is often the case with procedural statutes that extend the application of more frequently litigated statutes (like CCP § 1985.3). Courts typically apply the statute as written, and disputes regarding such subpoenas generally revolve around the underlying principles of discovery, privacy, and the specific requirements of CCP § 1985.3.

Why Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.4 plays a critical, albeit often behind-the-scenes, role in California personal injury litigation, particularly when a party or relevant witness is employed by a state or local government agency.

For Plaintiffs’ Attorneys:
This statute is vital for obtaining crucial evidence that may be held by government employers. For instance, if a public employee’s negligence caused an injury (e.g., a city bus driver, a county social worker, a state park ranger), a plaintiff’s attorney might seek the employee’s internal employment records related to training, disciplinary actions, prior incidents, or medical evaluations (if relevant to the incident). CCP § 1985.4 ensures that these records, despite being personal and held by a government entity, are discoverable, provided the strict notice requirements of CCP § 1985.3 are followed. This allows plaintiffs to gather evidence to prove liability, demonstrate a pattern of negligence, or support claims against the employing agency. Failing to follow these procedures means the subpoena can be challenged and quashed, delaying or preventing access to critical information.

For Defense Attorneys (representing government agencies or their employees):
This statute is crucial for understanding the proper process for responding to subpoenas that target employee records. Government agencies, as “witnesses” under this section, must be aware of their obligation to notify the “consumer” (their employee or other natural person) whose records are sought. Defense counsel representing the agency or the employee will often scrutinize such subpoenas to ensure procedural compliance and to identify potential privacy violations. They may file motions to quash or for a protective order if the subpoena is overbroad, seeks privileged information, or if the CCP § 1985.3 procedures were not properly followed. Understanding § 1985.4 helps them protect their clients’ privacy rights while navigating the discovery process.

In essence, CCP § 1985.4 serves as a gatekeeper, ensuring that while government-held personal information is not entirely shielded from discovery in personal injury cases, its production is conditioned on a respectful and legally sound process that prioritizes individual privacy. It highlights the importance of procedural diligence for both sides in personal injury disputes involving government employees or agencies.