Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody

Background

Calvary Chapel and the County of Santa Clara asked the court to resolve Calvary Chapel’s objections to the County’s notice for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows an organization to designate one or more people to testify about specified topics on the organization’s behalf.

Calvary Chapel’s underlying claims include allegations that the County and its officials imposed unconstitutionally excessive fines, violating the Eighth Amendment and Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The church also alleges that the County’s public-health orders pressured it to act inconsistently with its religious beliefs and practices.

The deposition notice had two groups of topics. Topics 1 through 17 concerned Calvary Chapel’s finances. Topics 18 through 23 concerned whether, and how, the County’s public-health orders required the church to act inconsistently with its religious beliefs or practices. Calvary Chapel argued that the requested discovery was duplicative, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and—regarding Topics 1 through 17—not relevant to its excessive-fines claims.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Calvary Chapel’s principal objection that the deposition would duplicate testimony already given by individual church employees. It held that testimony by employees in their individual capacities did not provide the County with binding testimony from Calvary Chapel itself. The court also declined to require the County to agree that the individual employees’ testimony would bind the church.

The court also found the financial topics relevant. Calvary Chapel said it was not arguing that the fines were excessive compared with its ability to pay, but instead argued that the fines were excessive compared with the harm allegedly caused by its noncompliance. The County responded that Calvary Chapel had placed the overall size of the fines at issue by describing them as “bankruptcy-inducing” and by alleging that paying them would divert money from ministry and other community obligations. The County also argued that any financial benefit the church received from violating the public-health orders could bear on its culpability, which is relevant to the excessive-fines analysis. The court agreed with both points.

The County agreed to limit certain financial discovery that otherwise would have reached back to January 1, 2017. The court ordered that Topics 1 through 4, 6, and 9 through 10 be limited to information dating back to January 1, 2018.

Calvary Chapel also raised First Amendment concerns about disclosing the identities of contributors or donors. The County represented that the topics did not seek those identities and that it did not want that information. The court accepted that representation and ordered that Calvary Chapel need not disclose contributor or donor identities. The parties were directed to cooperate so that the amount, timing, and other relevant information about contributions or donations could be discussed while referring to contributors or donors anonymously.

Disposition

The court ordered that the County may proceed with the noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Calvary Chapel, subject to the stated limits. The order specifically limited Topics 1 through 4, 6, and 9 through 10 to information dating back to January 1, 2018, and protected the identities of contributors and donors. The provided text also contains a damaged or incomplete reference to a limit on the deposition’s hours; the numerical limit cannot be determined from the text supplied. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi.