Skip to content
Name: Lunsted v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 138
Case #: E081770
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/01/2024
Summary

Trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the Facebook factors when ruling on defendant’s motion to quash the People’s subpoena duces tecum seeking his c-file. In preparation for an upcoming Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing hearing, the prosecution issued a subpoena duces tecum to CDCR seeking Lunsted’s “c-file” in its entirety. Lunsted moved to quash, arguing the subpoena was overbroad and sought privileged and immaterial medical and mental health records. The trial court concluded that the c-file was likely to contain information “germane to the resentencing procedures” and denied the motion. In his writ petition in the Court of Appeal, Lunsted argued the trial court failed to apply the Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Touchstone) (2020) 10 Cal.5th 329 factors to determine whether the People made a sufficient showing of good cause to defeat his motion to quash. Held: Petition granted. In Facebook, the California Supreme Court explained how a trial court assesses good cause to enforce a subpoena duces tecum in the face of a motion to quash, holding there are seven factors that a trial court should explicitly consider and balance. Here, the Court of Appeal clarified that these factors apply to subpoenas issued by both the defense and prosecution. The court agreed with Lunsted that nothing in the record reflected that the trial court expressly considered and balanced the seven required factors. Instead, the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard. The matter was remanded to allow the trial court to consider the Facebook factors. [Editor’s Note: Lunsted did not deny that the People demonstrated good cause to seek his disciplinary and rehabilitation records in his c-file.].