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 to Compel 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 to Compel

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: DEPT JUDGE ZOOM LINK MEETING ID

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 to Compel in Department 3A

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.

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 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.

Petitioner has served Respondents with discovery, including requests for production 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 to Compel in Department 3A

documents, special interrogatories, and has sought the deposition of several of Respondents’ employees. Petitioner now moves to compel certain documents withheld by Respondents on privilege grounds. For the reasons discussed herein, the motion will be denied.

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. On September 19, 2025, Petitioner served requests for production on Respondents seeking the administrative record, as well as “all documents related to the evaluation of proposals, and all documents related to Securus’s financial responsibility.” (Pet. Mot. to Comp. 8:24-27.) Respondents produced responsive documents, as well as two privilege logs indicating the withholding of some materials on the basis of privilege. (Declaration of Charles C. Correll, Jr. [Correll Decl.] ¶ 11, Exh. 5.)

Thereafter, on March 9 and 10, 2026, Petitioner took the depositions of Stephanie Jones, CDCR’s Acting Chief of the Incarcerated Population and Community Solutions Section, and Amy Snow, CDT’s Branch Chief in the Office of Statewide Technology Procurement. (Correll Decl. ¶ 14.) According to Petitioner, the testimony elicited in these depositions indicated that members of Respondents’ legal staff were responsible for evaluating Securus’s compliance with the RFP requirements.

Following the depositions of Ms. Jones and Ms. Snow, Petitioner noticed the depositions of three employees on Respondents’ legal staff. Respondents’ motion for a protective order prohibiting these depositions is set for hearing concurrently with this motion and is addressed in a separate ruling.

In addition to the requests for production, Petitioner has also submitted requests to Respondents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). A dispute about Respondents’ compliance with the CPRA has apparently arisen, resulting in a separate action in the Los

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 to Compel in Department 3A

Angeles Superior Court (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25STCP04139). (Declaration of Kelly L. Perigoe [Perigoe Decl.] ¶ 4.) Petitioner represents that Respondent has indicated its position that the responses to the CPRA requests are “coextensive with the discovery sought in this case.” (Pet. Mot. to Comp. 11:13-17.) Petitioner’s memorandum in support of its motion states that a hearing in the Los Angeles Superior Court PRA action was scheduled for May 19, 2026. However, the reply papers provide no information about the result of the hearing, if any, or update on the status of the CPRA action. The Court also notes that no notice of related case was filed in connection with the Los Angeles Superior Court action.

Petitioner moves to compel all of the documents withheld by Respondents on privilege grounds. (Correll Decl. Exh. 5.)

Relevant Standards of Review

A motion to compel further responses to a demand to production is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 where “the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[;] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

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 argues that Respondents are obliged to disclose the withheld documents because the deposition testimony of Ms. Snow and Ms. Jones “demonstrates that key non-privileged documents that have been withheld on the basis of privileges are not in fact privileged in light of the role that the legal team played in this aspect of the procurement.” (Opening Mem. 13:6-9.) Petitioner argues that because the deponents testified that members of Respondents’ legal staff participated in the evaluation of the bidders’ financial submission, the communications of the legal staff are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Petitioner argues, “[l]egal personnel were not providing legal advice on the awardee’s financial responsibility; they were the ones making the financial responsibility determination.” (Opening Mem. 13:21-24, italics in original.) Petitioner also contends that even if the attorney-client privilege applies, Respondents have waived it by putting the financial responsibility determination “at issue” in this action, and asserts that Respondents have failed to establish that the deliberative process privilege applies to the withheld records.

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 to Compel in Department 3A

Respondents oppose on several grounds. However, as discussed in the Court’s rulings on the other motions heard concurrently with this one, the dispositive factor here is the scope of review in a traditional mandamus action.

Petitioner’s challenge to the contract award is a traditional mandate action brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. (MCM Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 368.) As such, judicial review “is limited to an examination of the proceedings to determine whether the public agency’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or inconsistent with proper procedure.” (DeSilva Gates Construction, LP v. Dept. of Transp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1417-1418, cleaned up, quoting Ghillotti Construction Co. v.

City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897, 903.) Extra-record evidence is generally not admissible in traditional mandamus actions challenging an agency’s exercise of discretion. (San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Comm. v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 159, 167 (San Joaquin), citing Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 576.) Accordingly, because review is limited to the administrative record, discovery in traditional mandamus actions “is usually not necessary.” (Ibid.)

Moreover, it is well-established that “substantial evidence review is purely a question of law and is limited to the administrative record.” (San Joaquin, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 167.) In undertaking this review, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency:

There is a presumption that the [agency’s] actions were supported by substantial evidence, and [the petitioner] has the burden of proving otherwise. [A reviewing court] may not reweigh the evidence and must view it in the light most favorable to the [agency’s] actions, indulging all reasonable inferences in support of those actions.

(Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 903.)

Nor does the Court evaluate the subjective decision making of the agency: “In an ordinary mandamus review of a legislative or quasi-legislative decision, courts decline to inquire into thought processes or motives, but evaluate the decision on its face because legislative discretion is not subject to judicial control and supervision.” (San Joaquin, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 171.)

As Respondents argue in opposition, the administrative record in this action consists of the procurement record, which constitutes the materials that were before the agency when it made the challenged decision. Respondents aver that the procurement record contains: (1) the RFP and the bidders’ responses to the RFP; (2) State’s requests for clarification and the bidders’ responses to these requests; (3) State’s evaluation of the bids; and (4) evaluation and selection

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 to Compel in Department 3A

report. (Opp. to Pet. Mot. to Compel, 6:28-7:3.) In reviewing the challenged contract award, the Court must determine whether this record contains substantial evidence in support of Respondents’ decision.

Under this standard, the communications Petitioner seeks, which purportedly reflect Respondents’ legal staff’s “review and decision to ignore the problematic financial statements,” are outside the scope of the Court’s review. In an action for traditional mandate, the Court does not probe the agency’s “thought processes or motives” and instead “evaluate[s] the decision on its face.” (San Joaquin, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 171.) If, as Petitioner appears to contend, the procurement record contains insufficient evidence to support the decision to award the contract to Securus, then Petitioner will prevail.

For example, on reply, Petitioner argues, “the withheld evidence (and the deposition testimony the State seeks to prevent in its motion for a protective order) is the only evidence that will reveal the State’s basis for determining that Securus was a financially responsible bidder, which lies at the heart of [Petitioner’s] challenge.” (Reply iso Pet. Mot. to Compel, 6:26-27:1.) If Petitioner is correct, Respondents will not be able to establish that substantial evidence in the record refutes Petitioner’s challenge.

Unlike in a civil litigation matter, Petitioner need not conduct discovery in order generate or obtain new evidence in a post-hoc effort to learn about Respondents’ “justification” for the contract award. It is the record itself that provides the evidence, or establishes the lack thereof, to support Respondents’ decision.

The withheld documents are therefore outside the scope of the Court’s review in this traditional mandamus action. Petitioner’s motion to compel will be denied on this basis.

Having so determined, the Court need not and does not decide whether the motion is timely as to Respondent CDT or reach Respondents’ assertions of privilege.

Disposition

Petitioner’s motion to compel is denied.

The Minute Order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.