## Facts

- Anti-abortion protesters Rossi Foti and Jeannette Garibaldi regularly demonstrated outside Planned Parenthood clinics and alleged that Planned Parenthood “escorts” obstructed and intimidated them while they protested on public sidewalks.
- Foti sued Planned Parenthood and others for damages and injunctive relief, alleging defamation, abuse of process, emotional distress, and battery.
- Planned Parenthood filed a cross-complaint against Foti, Garibaldi, and others alleging interference, harassment, and emotional distress, asserting that protesters intimidated employees, volunteers, patients, and companions at clinics.
- During discovery, Foti sought identification and contact information for Planned Parenthood staff and volunteers with knowledge relevant to the litigation.
- A discovery referee recommended compelling Planned Parenthood to disclose names, residential addresses, and telephone numbers of nonparty staff and volunteers, subject to a protective order.
- The superior court adopted the recommendation and ordered disclosure.
- Planned Parenthood sought writ relief to overturn the discovery order; the Court of Appeal stayed the order and reviewed the ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether ordering disclosure of nonparty staff and volunteers’ names, home addresses, and telephone numbers in this dispute improperly infringed constitutional privacy and associational rights.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling disclosure despite safety concerns and the availability of less intrusive means to obtain discovery.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and held the discovery order could not be sustained.
- The court vacated the order compelling disclosure of nonparty staff and volunteers’ names, residential addresses, and telephone numbers.
- The court directed the superior court to reconsider discovery using measures that adequately protect nonparties’ privacy and associational interests, including less intrusive alternatives.

## Legal Principles

- California’s constitutional right to privacy limits civil discovery when disclosure would significantly intrude on personal privacy, particularly for nonparties; courts must balance the need for information against the privacy invasion.
- Compelled disclosure identifying individuals affiliated with a controversial organization can burden freedom of association when disclosure risks harassment, threats, or reprisals and may chill participation.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over discovery, but they abuse that discretion by failing to meaningfully weigh constitutional privacy and associational interests against asserted discovery needs.
- Protective orders may be inadequate where disclosure of home contact information poses a significant risk of misuse or inadvertent dissemination, especially in a context involving credible allegations of intimidation.
- When sensitive identifying information is sought, courts should consider less intrusive mechanisms (e.g., pseudonyms, contact through counsel, controlled service arrangements) that permit access to witnesses without unnecessary disclosure of home contact information.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal required heightened protection for nonparty clinic staff and volunteers from compelled disclosure of home contact information in discovery, holding that privacy and associational rights—combined with the risk of harassment in a contentious protest context—outweighed the requesting party’s demand where less intrusive alternatives were available.


Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 347, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Ct. App. 2000)