Good afternoon. Pamela Withey, appearing for Sojourn Services for Battered Women in the Ocean Park Community Center.
We have filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Vivian Rothstein, Executive Director of Ocean Park Community Center, requesting any and all call sheets prepared by or for Nancy Ney dated June 7.
The basis for our objection is set forth in the moving papers, which we have filed with Your Honor.
I think it's fairly simple, as it comes squarely within Evidence Code Section 1037.5 and 1037.6, which requires the counselor and the shelter to claim the privilege unless there is some exemption. And there is none in this case, as there is no showing that there was any waiver of the right to confidentiality and no showing that any caller would be deceased. Therefore, these callers, if any exist, are not involved in this case, and any callers have their right to this privacy and to this privilege; and therefore, we are asserting that.
And I do believe 20 -- I'm sorry, 1037 does apply to this case, despite the argument of defense counsel, because it squarely defines who a domestic violence counselor is. And clearly, Nancy Ney fits that definition. And it clearly defines what a confidential communication is. And this entire code section addresses the need for confidentiality and privilege by women calling into hot-line numbers dealing with domestic violence.
The information on a call sheet, which is what is being requested here, would clearly come within the definition of a confidential communication. And the person who was the domestic violence counselor at the time of the confidential communication is the one that must, and we do indeed now, assert that privilege.
I'll address any questions the Court may have on this.
I think it's pretty straightforward.
First of all, the mere fact that there is or is not other calls, in and of itself --
Okay.
And, Mr. Baker, you signed this, so I'll assume you wrote this, unless Ms. Bluestein name is all over it.
What is it you want to derive from the other documents?
Nancy Ney first testified, as the Court will recall, that she premarked the call sheets with the date. And I want to see -- because she said that that call came in at 11 o'clock. We don't believe that call sheet is an accurate call sheet relative to -- that pertains to anything relative to this case. The point being that she has said that she was at that institution --
KEY QUOTEI want to see, number one, the date.
Number two, she says we don't write on the call sheets because they're only used for funding purposes.
I want to see if any other call sheet has any writing on it.
As is indicated in our opposition, they can take out anything that would identify the caller in any way, shape, or form, and show that it's just redacted, to see if there's anything on it. If it comes out --
Let me explain where our problem is.
Any confidential information received from a caller -- now, it may be true that the date is not confidential information received from the caller.
This code section says the confidential communication of any information, whether it be age or whether it be race or whether it be the circumstances of the abuser or whatever, any information obtained from the caller by Nancy Ney is privileged.
Now, if counsel's only talking about the date, that information is not obtained from the caller.
If he's talking about Nancy's name, that's not obtained from the caller.
And if we're talking about a time, then that would not be information obtained from the caller.
Any information obtained from the caller would be privileged.
I'm going to refer you specifically to Evidence Code 1037.2.
Confidential communication is information transmitted between the victim and the counselor in the course of their relationship and in confidence by means which so far as the victim is aware, discloses the information to no third person other than those who are present to further the interest of the victim in the consultation, et cetera.
So what we will not -- what we believe is privileged and is privileged is in the information.
Now, if you're interested just in a date, Nancy's name and the time, and delete everything else and make -- and not reveal any information that was obtained from the caller --
I'll tell you what, Mr. Baker: My thought is, if -- let me see if this would meet your needs.
If the holder of the document redacts whatever has been entered that would indicate to you that there were entries there --
If you redact it, you're going to represent -- will you represent to me, as an officer of the Court, that you're redacting items that have been entered onto the document?
Yes. So it will have some probative value? So there were items entered. And it was redacted.
We don't -- Mr. Baker doesn't care about the information. He's concerned about how the forms were filled out by the witness.
KEY QUOTEOne moment. I was just --
Can you do that? (Indicating to member of the audience.) I was conferring.
My suggestion -- and, Mr. Baker, would it be agreeable with you if they make a -- redact a copy, redact that, and make a copy of that so that it can be --
The date, the time and her name is not information contained therein, and that will not be redacted.
Her name -- to make a long story short, this will then fall squarely within the privilege, that no information obtained from this caller will be revealed?
This code section says the confidential communication of any information, whether it be age or whether it be race or whether it be the circumstances of the abuser or whatever, any information obtained from the caller by Nancy Ney is privileged.
We don't -- Mr. Baker doesn't care about the information. He's concerned about how the forms were filled out by the witness.
Nancy Ney first testified, as the Court will recall, that she premarked the call sheets with the date. And I want to see -- because she said that that call came in at 11 o'clock. We don't believe that call sheet is an accurate call sheet relative to -- that pertains to anything relative to this case.