CABRERA vs THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, A PUBLIC ENTITY

24CV011693: CABRERA vs THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, A PUBLIC ENTITY 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be

24CV011693: CABRERA vs THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, A PUBLIC ENTITY 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 8D

signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant California Department of Conservation’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two from Plaintiff Miguel Cabrera (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

In this employment action, Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated after filing a whistleblower complaint with the California Attorney General’s Office and the California State Auditor

Defendant served the at issue discovery requests on July 17, 2025. (Lively Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff served responses on September 19, 2025. (Lively Decl., ¶ 4.) The parties engaged in meet-and-confer efforts, including discussion of the use of a protective order, but were unable to come to an agreement. (Lively Decl., ¶¶ 5-12.)

Defendant now moves to compel further responses to requests for production of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011693: CABRERA vs THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, A PUBLIC ENTITY 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 8D

documents, set two, nos. 68 and 69 and for production of documents. Plaintiff opposes.

Requests at Issue

Request for Production No. 68: Every and all pages of all United States passports that YOU used during the period from August 1, 2021 through September 25, 2023.

Request for Production No. 69: All DOCUMENTS that constitute, evidence, mention, refer, or relate to YOUR United States passport that was valid from August 1, 2021 through September 25, 2023.

Plaintiff responded to both stating:

This interrogatory seeks to violate the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy. (See Cal. Const. art. I, § 1.). The requested information is overbroad and irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CBS v. Superior Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12 (1968)) This request is only calculated to burden, annoy, or harass the Responding Party. Responding Party will not respond to this request.

Discussion

Objections

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s objections of privacy are without merit, as the requested documents “pertain[] to the veracity of statements made by Plaintiff in his deposition testimony of May 5, 2025 and directly pertains to a defense to Plaintiff’s claims.” In opposition, Plaintiff argues that his Constitutional right to privacy outweighs Defendant’s interests in discovering the information requested in the requests.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court . . . any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) As the party resisting discovery, Plaintiff has the burden to justify objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011693: CABRERA vs THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, A PUBLIC ENTITY 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 8D

Information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

“The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 553.) Where all three factors are met, the privacy interests must then be balanced against the right of discovery.

Where privacy rights are implicated, the party seeking discovery must show more than mere legal relevance or likely to lead to admissible evidence. They must first establish that the information sought is not only “directly relevant” to the parties' claims but also “essential” to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. (See, e.g., Alch v. Superior Court (Time Warner Entertainment Co.) (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1432-1433.) Additionally, in order to pass constitutional scrutiny, any discovery into matters deemed private must be “narrowly tailored” to obtain only the “essential” information and the party seeking the discovery must show there is no less intrusive means to obtain this information. (See, e.g., Tien v.

Superior Court (Tenet Healthcare Corp.) (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 539- 540; In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 244.) Even where all these prerequisites are met, there is still no categorical right to conduct discovery into the private matters as the trial Court is required to “carefully balance” the rights and interests involved before permitting the proposed invasion of privacy. (See, e.g., Alch, at p. 1423-1425.)

The primary issue presented to the Court in this instant motion is whether Plaintiff has an expectation of privacy with respect to his passport. The Court has found no authority which addresses this exact issue, nor have the Parties provided caselaw which would establish a right to privacy or lack thereof with respect specifically to one’s passport.

Courts have found in a criminal context and for the purposes of identification that “Information contained on a driver's license does not give such rise to a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. Drivers' licenses are displayed routinely for purposes of identification.” (People v. Herrera (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 386, 389.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011693: CABRERA vs THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, A PUBLIC ENTITY 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 8D

With respect to travel history, the California Supreme Court has explained that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties,” but found that “[a] person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, ‘what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.’” (Carpenter v. United States (2018) 585 U.S. 296, 308-310.) The court in Carpenter ultimately found that the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his cell phone location records, which the government sought to use to trace Carpenter’s movements, as such records constituted “perfect surveillance” which could pinpoint Carpenter’s movements over a five-year period. (Id., at pp. 312-313.)

Plaintiff argues that a passport contains “highly sensitive personal information that far exceeds the scope of any legitimate discovery need in this litigation,” including “nationality, citizenship status, and a detailed travel history that may, in turn, expose information about religious pilgrimage, medical tourism, or political activity qualifying the information as both autonomous privacy and informational privacy.” (Opp., p. 3:6-11.)

Here, while Defendant does not seek Plaintiff’s exact location data for an extended period, as is described in Carpenter, Defendant seeks all pages of Plaintiff’s passport for a two-year period, thus obtaining information regarding Plaintiff’s international travel, citizenship status, and nationality. The Court similarly agrees with Plaintiff in his argument that customs and practices support a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his passport, as this is not a document which is commonly used to establish identity, other than for use in international travel.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has established a legally protected privacy interest and expectation of privacy with respect to his passport and the information contained therein. The Court further finds that requests nos. 68 and 69 constitute a serious threatened intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy rights.

Plaintiff argues that he has already produced the information sought by Defendant via a less intrusive means. Plaintiff “has already produced extensive travel documentation, including flight reservations and travel records, that directly establish when Plaintiff was outside the United States.” (Opp., p. 5:9-11; see also Arreola Decl., ¶ 9.) On reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s passport “is likely the most reliable source of such information as international travel is not solely restricted to airplane flights.” (Reply, p.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011693: CABRERA vs THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, A PUBLIC ENTITY 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 8D

2:14-15.) Defendant further argues that there are no feasible alternatives to obtain the information it seeks, because flight information does not account for all times Plaintiff has traveled internationally. However, the Court is not persuaded that Defendant could not seek this same information via special interrogatories or via the deposition of Plaintiff, as opposed to seeking Plaintiff’s passport.

In balancing the rights and interests of the parties, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s privacy interests outweigh Defendant’s discovery interests, in particular as Plaintiff has already provided the information which Defendant asserts is the purpose of the instant motion.

Therefore, the Court will DENY Defendant’s motion.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.