## Facts

- Denise DiGiovanni sought dissolution-related financial discovery from Jamie Babcock, her estranged husband Dennis DiGiovanni’s cohabitant and former employee.
- Babcock had lived with Dennis since June 1992; she previously worked for Dennis’s company, Road Tech, Inc. (1987–1991), and claimed unemployment since January 1991.
- Despite claimed unemployment, Babcock acquired a home valued about $341,000 with a $91,000 down payment (Dec. 1991) and a $30,000 car with a $7,500 down payment (June 1992).
- Denise suspected community funds were diverted to Babcock and that Babcock’s finances could reflect Dennis’s true income and ability to pay support.
- Denise obtained a car loan application in which Babcock represented she was Road Tech’s vice president of sales and marketing earning $7,900 per month, conflicting with her unemployment claim.
- Babcock resisted broad disclosure of banking, employment, and related financial records, asserting California constitutional privacy rights, and sought a protective order.
- The superior court ordered broad production without conducting an in camera review and without meaningful protective limits on scope or dissemination.
- Babcock petitioned for a writ of mandate to restrain enforcement and require privacy-protective discovery management.

## Issues

1. Under what conditions may a dissolution litigant obtain discovery of a third-party cohabitant’s financial records when community assets or support-related finances are suspected to be implicated?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering broad third-party financial discovery without in camera review and without an adequate protective order safeguarding constitutional privacy.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition and issued a writ of mandate.
- The court held Denise made a sufficient initial factual showing to justify some discovery from Babcock despite her privacy interests.
- The court held the superior court abused its discretion by compelling production without first conducting an in camera review and without issuing an appropriate protective order.
- The writ directed the superior court to review the requested financial records in camera and to enter a protective order limiting disclosure to what is relevant and necessary and restricting use to the dissolution proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- A third party’s financial records are protected by California’s constitutional right of privacy and are not subject to automatic disclosure in dissolution litigation.
- To obtain third-party financial discovery, the requesting party must make a specific initial showing that the information is likely relevant (e.g., evidence suggesting diversion of community funds, inconsistent income representations, or substantial contributions affecting support).
- If the threshold showing is met, the trial court must balance the requesting party’s need for disclosure against the third party’s privacy interests.
- Before disclosure of third-party financial documents, the court should conduct an in camera review to screen for relevance and limit unnecessary intrusion.
- The court must issue a narrowly tailored protective order governing access and restricting use and dissemination of the disclosed information.

## Conclusion

Limited discovery of a cohabitant’s financial records in a dissolution case may be permitted upon a concrete showing of relevance, but the trial court must protect third-party privacy by screening documents in camera and imposing a tailored protective order; failure to do so is an abuse of discretion warranting writ relief.


Babcock v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 4th 721 (Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1994)