527.6 ruling does not estop later discovery

Yet another judicial misstatement of whether discovery is available during a civil harassment trial. By 4DCA3 in 2009.  Estrada is a huge complicated case of lesbian attraction gone explosively bad in a workplace.  Extensive discussion of discovery battle.

Unfortunately, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3 unpublished opinion authored by Justice O'Leary absolutely misquotes the few "published" cases about Discovery in 527.6 hearings.  He is not alone but until publication of all opinions is restored, his ilk will continue to skate by on faulty logic.

Estrada case Justice O'Leary mis-states,

"Although the trial court in an antiharassment proceeding must "receive any testimony that is relevant" at the hearing (§ 527.6, subd. (d)), there is no right to conduct discovery in a proceeding under section 527.6. (Thomas, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 650, fn. 11; see generally Byers, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 811-812.) Indeed, Judge Flynn, the trial judge in the antiharassment proceeding, specifically reminded the litigants' attorneys, when questioning witnesses, about the specialized nature of the section 527.6 proceeding and admonished, "I'll give you certain leeway, but please don't use this [proceeding] as a discovery tool for anything that might be coming down the road." In short, the judgment in Martinez v. Estrada, supra, G036365, was not a reason for denying Defendants discovery in this case.

In fact, neither Thomas nor Byers declare that discovery is not available for a 527.6 hearing.  Instead they simply state the obvious that harassment actions usually occur so quickly that discovery can not be completed.  Read More at Discovery Act and 527.6

Nothing contained herein is tendered as nor should it be considered as legal advice.  What is legal is not necessarily justice.  Almost all of reality is non-"published", ergo, what is legally affirmed is always a retarded misrepresentation of reality.   Use at your own risk!