Family Law Tentative Rulings

The following Tentative Rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6836 by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.

PLEASE NOTE: If argument is requested in this matter you may appear in person or remotely via Zoom. To appear via Zoom please see the Zoom information below. 

TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE,

D21 – Family Law – Law & Motion Calendar

• MeetingID: 160 223 6856
• Password: 876992
• https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1602236856

TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE,

• Call 1 669 254 5252 (same meeting ID and password as listed above)

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Thursday, October 2, 2025 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom 21 –Hon. Kinna Patel Crocker

3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa CA 95403

TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE:

Meeting ID: 160-223-6856

Passcode: 876992

https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1602236856

TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE:

By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed above):

(669) 254-5252

The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard.  If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the department’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6836 by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties/counsel of their intent to appear.

1. 24FL02051, Thurber v. Thurber
   Motion to Compel Further Discovery Response to Demand for Production of Documents and Tangible Items, Set No. Three GRANTED, subject to the limitation regarding third parties’ information, as set forth below.  The court AWARDS to Respondent, against Petitioner, sanctions of $1,485. 

Facts

            Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage with minor children (the “Children”) on October 4, 2024.  Respondent filed his response on December 5, 2024.

             The parties are currently involved in a discovery dispute as described in the Declaration of Richard Sax in Support of Respondent’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Response to Demand for Production of Documents and Tangible Items, Set No. Three (“Sax Dec.”).  According to the Sax Dec., Respondent served Petitioner on June 18, 2025 with a Demand for Production of Documents and Tangible Items, Set No. Three (“RPD”) seeking all documents from Petitioner’s HoneyBook account, “including, but not limited to, communications, scheduling, bookings, appointments, contracts, invoices, and online payments for the period of time from January 1 2023 through the date of production.”  Petitioner served her response on July 22, 2025, objecting that the RPD violates her right to privacy as well as the privacy rights of third parties, specifically customers.  The parties met and conferred but were unable to resolve the dispute. 

Motion

            In his Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Compel Further Discovery Response to Demand for Production of Documents and Tangible Items, Set No. Three, Respondent moves the court to compel Petitioner to provide a further, substantive response to the RPD.

            Petitioner argues that although Respondent claims to be seeking only information about her income, the RPD seeks much more information which includes sensitive client information implicating her privacy rights and those of her clients.  She contends that this private information is not necessary.
            Respondent has filed a reply, reasserting his need for the information and further explaining that Petitioner’s business was handled on an all-cash basis up until 2024, with a history of taking cash payments to avoid declaring it for income tax.  He notes that Petitioner has admitted to not filing income tax returns for 2020, 2021, or 2022.

Authority Governing Motions to Compel Further Responses

According to the Family Law Rules of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 5.2(d), and Family Code section 210, provisions applicable to civil actions generally apply to proceedings under the Family Code unless otherwise provided.  This includes the rules applicable to civil actions in the California Rules of Court and the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), and specifically proceedings pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act set forth at CCP section 2016.010, et seq.  See, e.g., In re Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 1004, at 1022.

When a propounding party is dissatisfied with responses to requests for production or inspection, that party may move to compel further responses.  CCP section 2031.310. The moving party must make adequate attempts to meet and confer.  Ibid.  Generally, once a timely, proper motion to compel further responses has been made, the responding party has the burden to justify objections or incomplete answers.  Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. 

            A party moving to compel further responses to a production request, however, must demonstrate “good cause" for seeking the items.  CCP section 2031.310(b)(1).  This requires a showing that the items are relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and a showing of specific facts justifying discovery.  Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.  Whether there is an alternative source for the information is relevant though not dispositive.  Associated Brewers Distrib. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588.  Once the moving party demonstrates good cause, the responding party must justify its objections.  Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.

Requests must identify the documents sought by describing a category with “reasonable particularity” CCP section 2031.030(c)(1).  This description must be particularized from the point of view of the person on whom the demand is made, such as by describing categories which bear some relationship to the manner in which the documents are kept.  See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4^th 216, 222.

A party has a duty to provide “complete” responses and to make them as straightforward as possible.  CCP sections 2031.210-2031.230.  Requests must be answered to the extent possible and an answer that contains only part of the information requested or which evades a meaningful response is improper.  Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. 

            Where a party has failed to respond to a request for production or the responses are considered inadequate, the first step is not to compel production but, as with interrogatories, to compel a response, and only once a party has obtained a response agreeing to produce items may the party seek production in compliance with that response.  CCP sections 2031.300, 2031.310, 2031.320.

The protection is rooted in Cal. Const., Art.1, section 1, which states, in full, “[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”  The right to privacy, including that regarding financial matters, belongs only to natural persons, not business entities.  Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 790-791.  As the court in Roberts explained, “[t]he constitutional provision [in Cal. Const., Art.1, section 1] simply does not apply to corporations. The provision protects the privacy rights of people.”  Emphasis original. 

At the same time, although the issue is not settled, business entities themselves appear to have some limited privacy and confidentiality protection, depending on the circumstances, but not the same constitutional right which natural persons possess.  See Ameri-Medical Corp. v. WCAB (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1286-1289 (professional medical corporation retained privacy interest in financial and employment information unrelated to preparation of medical reports sought by workers’ compensation insurers); Roberts, supra, 796-797.  As the court in Roberts stated, “Two critical factors are the strength of the nexus between the artificial entity and human beings and the context in which the controversy arises.”

The burden thus rests on the party seeking discovery to show that it is “directly” relevant, or essential, to the lawsuit.   Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d 859-862.  If the information can be obtained in less intrusive means, the court should not allow discovery of the private matters.  Allen v. Sup.Ct. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.   “[G]iven the private nature of a confidential settlement of a lawsuit, the burden rests on the proponents of discovery of this information… to justify compelling production of this material. They must do more than show the possibility it may lead to relevant information. Instead they must show a compelling and opposing state interest.”  Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa, Marsh & Still v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 233, 239 [disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Sup. Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal. 5^th 531, 557 & fn. 8].

The court must balance the interests, weighing the privacy right at issue against the public interest in obtaining just results.  Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup.Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657.  The court should consider 1) the purpose of the information sought; 2) the effect that disclosure will have on the parties and the trial; 3) the nature of the objections to disclosure; 4) whether the court may make an alternative order granting partial disclosure, disclosure in another form, or disclosure only if the party seeking the information undertakes certain appropriate burdens.  Valley Bank of Nevada, supra, 15 Cal.3d 658.      

Logically, however, in family law disputes, Fam.Code sections 2100 and 2120(a) expressly codify public policy requiring full and accurate disclosure of assets, liabilities, income and expenses to ensure a proper division of the community estate and “fair and sufficient” child and spousal support awards.  As a result, there is inherently and expressly a “compelling public interest” in discovery of such information which overcomes each party’s right to privacy in their personal financial information.  See, e.g., Schnabel v. Sup.Ct. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711; City of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (2003) 111 Cal.App. 4th 883, 894-896 (disapproved on other grounds by International Federation of Prof. & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Sup.Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 345) (stating that privacy rights granted peace officers over their personnel records give way to Family Code requirements of full financial disclosure during marital dissolution proceedings between peace officer and spouse).

Therefore, in a family dispute, each party’s financial records and information, such as business records and tax returns, are directly relevant to determination of issues such as property division, spousal support, and child support, and therefore discoverable.  Schnabel v. Sup.Ct. (Schnabel) (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711; see also Thomas B. v. Sup.Ct. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 255, 264 (in litigation regarding child support, a party generally has a right to discover the other party’s financial information and obtain financial records).  Discovery even of indirect property interests is therefore proper in such matters. Thomas B., supra, 263.  In Thomas B., the appellate court found it appropriate to allow discovery of the other party’s “accounting records relating to all real estate rental propert[y] in which [the other party] had either a direct or indirect financial interest” on the grounds that it was within the allowable scope of discovery as “relevant to the subject matter”; i.e., the other party’s ability to pay. 

However, courts must still conduct a balancing test to protect third parties’ rights to financial privacy.  Schnabel, supra, 711-713. 

Discussion

In the RPD in question, Respondent seeks all documents from Petitioner’s HoneyBook account, “including, but not limited to, communications, scheduling, bookings, appointments, contracts, invoices, and online payments for the period of time from January 1, 2023, through the date of production.”  Petitioner objects that the RPD violates her right to privacy as well as the privacy rights of third parties, specifically customers.  According to the parties, the HoneyBook account is an account with an online platform allowing the business to send invoices, execute contracts with clients, manage the work, and process payments.  Petitioner uses this to handle such matters in her business, Devotion Beauty, LLC, in which she provides makeup artist and hair services for weddings. 

Respondent contends that this is the only information which would allow him to examine Petitioner’s actual current income for calculating support.  Specifically, he contends that the records are necessary to show the jobs for which Petitioner has been hired in order to compare those with bank records already produced to determine if there are any jobs for which Petitioner has been hired but for which she has not yet deposited the payment into her account.  Respondent also asserts that Petitioner has previously attempted to hide her actual income, making this information of even greater importance.

As discussed above, Petitioner has no protectable privacy right in this information, which is directly relevant to the financial issues in this litigation.  Respondent’s explanation also is logical and reasonable on its face.  There is no reasonable basis for asserting Petitioner’s privacy right to prevent discovery of this information regarding Petitioner’s own business and financial records. 

That said, Petitioner is correct that her clients, i.e., third parties, have a protected privacy right here and there is no evidence basis for obtaining information specific to those third parties.  Therefore, private information identifying any third parties, such as names, residential or contact information, or any other such information which may link the third parties to these records is not at this time discoverable.  Such information must be redacted from the records.

    With the limitation that Respondent has no right to obtain the specific information regarding third parties’ identities, contact information, residences, and other information which may identify third parties or link them to the records at issue, the court GRANTS the motion.  Petitioner must submit further responses agreeing to the produce the records, without objection, but stating that Petitioner will redact all such third-party information while providing all of the requested information regarding her business, including all requested financial information.   

Sanctions

            For compelling further responses, the court shall impose monetary sanctions on the losing party unless that party acted with substantial justification, or other circumstances make sanctions unjust.  CCP sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.310.  In order to obtain sanctions, the moving party must state in the notice of motion that the party is seeking sanctions, identify against whom the party seeks the sanctions, and specify the kind of sanctions.  CCP section 2023.040.  Sanctions are limited to the “reasonable expenses” related to the motion.  Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.

            Both sides request attorney’s fees and costs.  The RFO specifically requests an award of sanctions “against Petitioner.”  The request does not include Petitioner’s attorney. Therefore, Respondent may only obtain an award of sanctions against Petitioner herself.

            Respondent is entitled to award of sanctions here.  Despite the limited protections regarding third parties, the real issue is clearly Petitioner’s own financial records.  As to Petitioner’s own information and records, her objections lack substantial justification.

            Respondent requests sanctions for 2 attorney hours at $375 an hour, 4.5 paralegal hours at $150 an hour, and the $60 filing fee, for a total of $1,485.  Sax Dec., ¶¶17-27.  This amount is facially reasonable.  The court AWARDS this amount.

Conclusion

            The court GRANTS the motion as set forth above.  The prevailing party shall prepare and serve a proposed order consistent with this tentative ruling within five days of the date set for argument of this matter. Opposing party shall inform the preparing party of objections as to form, if any, or whether the form of order is approved, within five days of receipt of the proposed order. The preparing party shall submit the proposed order and any objections to the court in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312. 

2. SFL091853, Cuadras Segura v. Gallagher
   MOTION CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 18, 2025 AT 9:00AM. There is no proof of service showing notice of this hearing or the motion.  Prior to the new hearing, the moving party must file timely proof of service in accord with California Rule of Court 3.1300, demonstrating service of the moving papers and notice of the hearing.