From the new documents:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 26, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department C-69 of the above-entitled Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, Defendant DINA SHACKNAI, (hereinafter "Defendant") will and does move this Court for an order compelling non-party Peteski Productions, Inc. (hereinafter awith the Document Subpoena served on them on March 12,2015, by ordering Peteski to produce the requested documents.
Defendant, Dina Shacknai served the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Business Records, through deposition officers Unisource Discovery, on March 12,2015 by mail. The return date for the requested records was April 10, 2015. On April 13, 2015, counsel for Ms. Shacknai received a series of boilerplate objections, ostensibly applying to each and every request enumerated in the subpoena. No attempt at production of documents responsive to the subpoena was made by Peteski.
Counsel for Defendant, Dina Shacknai has attempted to meet and conferred with Peteski, by sending a letter via U.S. Mail and facsimile on June 4,2015 and by telephonic attempt on June 12, 2015. As of the date of filing ofthis motion, Peteski and Counsel have not resolved this dispute.
This Motion is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Evan J. Gautier, the attached Exhibits, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Case Overview
On July 13, 2011, Rebecca Zahau ("Decedent") was found dead. After extensive investigation by local and federal law enforcement agencies, the San Diego County Sheriff s Department ruled that this death was a suicide. Plaintiffs, who are the heirs and representative o f Decedent, now allege that the defendants in this case, including Defendant, participated in some manner in the planning, implementation, execution and subsequent concealment of a scheme to murder Decedent.
Plaintiffs disagree with the San Diego County Sheriffs Department's determination of the Decedent's cause of death as suicide. As justification for their theory, Plaintiffs appear to rely heavily on the results of an independent investigation and second autopsy performed by an independent pathologist as part of a series of episodes of the "Dr.Phil Show," a daytime talk show produced by Peteski.
B. Significance of the Documents Requested
The San Diego Sheriffs Department conducted an extensive investigation into the death of Ms. Zahau and concluded that there was no foul play involved in this suicide, effectively clearing Defendant as a participant in Ms.Zahau's death. Therefore, any documents relied on by Plaintiffs in disputing the conclusions reached by the San Diego Sheriffs Department and making these highly disputed allegations are highly relevant to the defense of Defendant. Here, Plaintiffs are relying on the findings and conclusions of work performed in connection with the production of episodes of the "Dr. Phil Show." Thus, the sought records as detailed and enumerated in the subpoena should be made available to Defendant as Peteski is the best source for this information.
Peteski objects to Defendant subpoena on the grounds that Peteski is protected against the compelled disclosure of information under a doctrine commonly known as the newsperson's privilege. The requested documents relate to episodes of the "Dr. Phil Show," a daytime television entertainment program produced by Peteski. Peteski represents that it is protected under the newsperson's privilegeas the basis for its objections and in refusing to produce any responsive documents under a broad interpretation of Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (b); Evid. Code, § 1070. Peteski claims that it is "an organization that engages in the gathering of information for dissemination to the public." [See Declaration ofEvan J. Gautier ("Gautier DecL '') and Exhibit "B'l However, Peteski does not establish that such a privilege would apply to day time talk show productions such as the "Dr. Phil Show" whereas, in contrast, producers of legitimate journalism can invoke such a shield. Further, Cal. Const., Art. I, § 2, subd. (b); Evid. Code, § 1070 make no mention of protection for such organizations as day time talk shows, but rather, specifically enumerates that it applies to publishers, editors, reporters, or other persons connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, as well as radio or television news reporters.
Therefore, it is the burden of Peteski as an organization to establish its right to protection under the newsperson's privilege. A simple statement that Peteski "engages in the gathering of information for dissemination to the public" is deficient. Further, a claim asserting the newsperson's shield, or protection, is without merit given that much of the requested information was broadcast to an expansive audience, thereby negating any reasonable assertion that the information's source is entitled to protection from discovery.
Pg.6. In this case, law enforcement officials determined that the Decedent's cause of death was suicide. As the basis for their allegations, Plaintiffs rely on information from "independent" experts hired in connection with the production of certain episodes of the Dr. Phil Show, which centered around the Plaintiffs theory that the Decedent was murdered. The documents requested in the subpoena are crucial to Defendant, as they are highly likely to contain discoverable evidence, including the identification of additional witnesses and document.
The fact that the Dr. Phil show is claiming to be a news organization is just friggin' hilarious! :laughing:
Go Dina!!!!!
