GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other PET MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER in Department 3A

Tentative Ruling DATE/TIME: May 28, 2026 1:30 p.m. DEP. NO.: 3A JUDGE: HON. JENNIFER K. CLERK: D. TRAN ROCKWELL

GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, dba Case No.: 25WM000052 VIAPATH TECHNOLOGIES, an Idaho Corporation, Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. Respondents,

Nature of Proceedings:  Petitioner’s Motion for Protective Order

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 3A, on Thursday, May 28, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court, unless a party desiring to be heard so advises the Clerk of Department 3A no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the Clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

The Court strongly encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. However, 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 the hearing by audio and/or video through the following link:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other PET MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER in Department 3A

DEPT JUDGE ZOOM LINK MEETING ID 3A Hon. Jennifer K. https://saccourt-ca- 161 5277 4854 Rockwell gov.zoomgov.com/j/16152774854

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 using the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore, available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

If a Court Reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list is not used, aStipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing. Once the form is signed, it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 69959, Court Reporters are not permitted through the use of remote technology, and any Court Reporter designated for the hearing shall be physically present in the Courtroom.

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 of Department 3A 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 of Department 3A will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official Court Reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Introduction

This action involves a challenge to a public contract award pursuant to Public Contract Code section 6611, subdivision (d) [authorizing petition for writ of traditional mandate as mechanism to challenge negotiated state contract award].) Petitioner Global Tel*Link Corporation, d/b/a ViaPath Technologies (Petitioner) challenges a large technology contract awarded by Respondents Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Department of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other PET MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER in Department 3A

Technology (DOT), collectively, “Respondents.” Petitioner alleges that Respondents erred in awarding the contract to Real Party in Interest Securus Technologies, LLC (“Securus”) and seeks a writ of mandate setting aside the contract award to Securus.

The parties have engaged in discovery. Petitioner has served Respondents with discovery, including requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and has sought the deposition of several of Respondents’ employees. Securus has also served CDT with requests for production. Petitioner now moves for a protective order prohibiting CDT from producing the documents requested by Securus. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner’s motion will be granted.

Background

In July of 2024, Respondents issued the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the contract at issue. The RFP sought proposals for a contract to provide CDCR with communications technology for use by incarcerated individuals. Two firms, Petitioners and Securus, submitted timely final proposals. Respondents invited both Petitioner and Securus to participate in the negotiation process under Public Contract Code section 6611. At the conclusion of the process, Respondents announced that they intended to award the contract to Securus.

Petitioner filed this action on April 1, 2025. Petitioner alleges that the contract award to Securus was improper. The principal basis for Petitioner’s challenge is its claim that Securus is financially distressed and therefore does not qualify as a “responsible bidder” for purposes of the Public Contract Code and the RFP. Petitioner also claims that Securus did not comply with the RFP’s requirements regarding submission of a Letter of Bondability.

As noted, Petitioner has propounded discovery on the Respondents, the focus of which appears to be on Securus’s financial status and Respondents’ evaluation thereof during the negotiation and contract award process. (Opening Mem. 6:15-18.) Respondents initially withheld financial information submitted by Securus during the bidding process. (Declaration of Charles C. Correll, Jr. in support of Pet. Motion for Protective Order [Correll Decl.] ¶ 2.) Respondents apparently agreed to produce the Securus financial documents, but with a “confidential” designation, after Petitioner pointed out that the financial documents at issue had already been publicly disclosed in connection with another matter. (Correll Decl.

Exh. C, F.) Respondents also conditioned their disclosure of the Securus financial documents on Petitioner’s agreement to the production of its own financial statements. (Correll Decl. Exh. D.)

On March 9, 2026, Securus served CDT with a single request for production of documents, seeking Petitioner’s financial information submitted during the contract bidding process. (Correll Decl. Exh. E.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other PET MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER in Department 3A

Petitioner now seeks a protective order prohibiting Respondents’ disclosure of its financial records to Securus pursuant to Securus’s discovery request.

Relevant Standards of Review

Upon a showing of good cause, a protective order may issue “to protect any party, or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).)

In an action challenging the award of a public contract under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, as provided in Public Contract Code section 6611, subdivision (d), the court’s review is limited “to an examination of the proceedings before the agency to determine whether its actions and findings are supported by substantial evidence.” (MCM Const., Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 359, 368.)

Discussion

Petitioner contends that the financial records it provided to Respondents as part of its bid submissions are confidential and subject to the official information privilege, as they were submitted to Respondents “in confidence” in the course of participating in a public contracting proceeding. (See Evid. Code, § 1040, subd. (a) [“’official information’ means information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made”].) Petitioner also contends that its financial records are not relevant to the dispute in this action, which challenges the contract award to Securus. Petitioner argues that only Securus’ financial status is relevant because Petitioner has alleged that Respondents erred in finding Securus to be a responsible bidder.

The Court agrees. The agency decision challenged in this action is Respondents’ decision to award the contract to Securus. Therefore, it only matters whether Respondents’ determinations with regard to Securus are supported by substantial evidence. Respondents’ determinations regarding Petitioner’s financial status are irrelevant, as they do not inform any determinations about the award to Securus. Put another way, Petitioner’s financial condition, whether better or worse than Securus’s, would not change the evidentiary support for Respondents’ determination that Securus was a responsible bidder.

In opposition, Respondents contend that production of the financial information provided by both Petitioner and Securus is necessary in order for Respondents to “mount an effective defense” against Petitioner’s challenge. (Resp. Opp. to Pet. Mot. for Prot. Order, 7:4-5.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other PET MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER in Department 3A

Respondents argue that Petitioner has alleged that Respondents engaged in favoritism by requiring Petitioner to strictly comply with the RFP requirements while allowing Securus to deviate from these requirements. (Id. at 7:3-17, citing Pet. ¶¶ 68, 69, 85, 94.) Respondents point to the two bidders’ submission of Letters of Bondability, arguing that both Petitioner’s and Securus’s submissions were relevant to Petitioner’s claim that the RFP requirements were applied unequally. (Id. at 7:7-14.)

However, Respondents do not explain why Petitioner’s financial information, which Respondents do not dispute is confidential, is relevant to Petitioner’s claim that it was required to strictly comply with the RFP requirements but Securus was not. Nothing in the parties’ briefing or the Petition indicates that the financial records of either Securus or Petitioner are relevant to the bidders’ compliance with the RFP requirements, such as the required Letter of Bondability. Respondents point to nothing in the financial records of either bidder that are relevant to the application of the RFP requirements or Petitioner’s claim that Securus was allowed to deviate from the requirements.

Rather, under a different basis for relief, Petitioner alleges that Respondents erred in determining that Securus was a responsible bidder, given its allegedly distressed financial condition. (Pet. ¶¶ 47-49, 83, 92.) This “responsible bidder” challenge is a separate theory from the allegedly unequal application of the RFP requirements. As discussed above, Petitioner’s financial information is irrelevant to Respondents’ determination that Securus was a responsible bidder.

Accordingly, a protective order is warranted to prevent the disclosure of Petitioner’s confidential financial documents that are not relevant to the resolution of the Petition’s merits.

Disposition

Petitioner’s motion for a protective order is granted.

Petitioner shall prepare a formal order consistent with this ruling, submit it to the opposing party for approval as to form, and thereafter submit it to the Court for signature in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.