Wiretapping Laws in California

The Invasion of Privacy Act, enacted in 1967 which subsequent amendments, is encoded at Penal Code § 630, et seq. It prohibits wiretapping, and also bars a person from recording a conversation with another absent the other person's knowledge and consent. Penal Code § 632.

First Cause of Action for Violation of Penal Code Section 631(a) Penal Code § 631(a) imposes liability upon any entity that by means of any machine, instrument, contrivance, or in any other manner, (1) intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or (2) willfully

C 22-03780 WHA, 2022 WL 17869275, at *2 (finding "the first clause of Section 631(a) concerns telephonic wiretapping specifically, which does not apply to the context of the internet"). Plaintiff's misinterpretation appears to occur because Plaintiff blurs the lines between the Federal Wiretap Act and California Penal Code Section 631. (Opposition Memorandum ("Opp. Memo") 15:8 - 28).

First Cause of Action – Penal Code Section 631 The first cause of action does not allege sufficient facts to constitute a violation of Penal Code section 631. The California Invasion of Privacy Act is California's anti-wiretapping and anti-eavesdropping statute that prohibits unauthorized interceptions of communications in order "to protect the right of privacy." (Penal Code, § 630.)

Plaintiff does not need to alleged any financial injury resulting from the alleged interception because Penal Code section 637.2 authorizes a civil action to redress a violation of Penal Code section 631 for the greater or $5,000.00 or three times the actual damages, “if any.” Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate standing. The demurrer on this ground is overruled.

Penal Code § 631 does not appear to apply to the circumstances, as the recording did not involve any wiretap (or similar activity) of the conversation with Carlos. Penal Code § 632 may very well apply if King recorded his conversation with Carlos without consent. But even if King violated Penal Code § 632, thereby potentially rendering the recording inadmissible under subsection 632(d), the recording is still discoverable, as it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Natale argues that this fails to allege a claim for wiretapping under Penal Code section 631. Penal Code section 632 makes it unlawful to intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, use an amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication. Penal Code section 632 prohibits the intentional eavesdropping to a confidential communication by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, without the consent of all parties.

Likewise, the language of Penal Code section 632 is expressly broad in prohibiting the eavesdropping or recording of communications “in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio.” (Penal Code § 632, emphasis added.)

Analysis: First cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 630, et seq. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failto state a claim for violation of the CIPA because Facebook was a party to the communications that were allegedly intercepted. (See Rogers v. Ulrich (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 894, 899 [“only a third party can listen to what is said in private”].) The Court is not persuaded.

Analysis: First cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 630, et seq. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failto state a claim for violation of the CIPA because Facebook was a party to the communications that were allegedly intercepted. (See Rogers v. Ulrich (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 894, 899 [“only a third party can listen to what is said in private”].) The Court is not persuaded.

Analysis: First cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 630, et seq. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failto state a claim for violation of the CIPA because Facebook was a party to the communications that were allegedly intercepted. (See Rogers v. Ulrich (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 894, 899 [“only a third party can listen to what is said in private”].) The Court is not persuaded.

In sum, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient as to Penal Code section 631(a).

The FAC alleges a single cause of action for violation of California Penal Code § 631(a). Defendants now demurrer to the FAC. A.

Initially, the Court rejects Defendants contention that it cannot be subject to derivative liability under California Penal Code , Section 631(a). The complaint sufficiently alleges facts showing that Attentive violated the second clause of California Penal Code , Section 631. ( Id ., ¶¶ 11-13, 20-22.)

Penal Code section 632.5, subdivision (a): anyone who “maliciously and without the consent of all parties to the communication, intercepts, receives, or assists in intercepting or receiving a communication transmitted between cellular radio telephones or between any cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone” violates this statute.

Penal Code § 631) : OVERRULED. a.

California Penal Code section 631(a), prescribes criminal penalties for three distinct and mutually independent patterns of conduct: intentional wiretapping, wilfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire, and attempting to use or communicate information obtained as a result of engaging in either of the previous two activities. ( Id. at p. 192.)

Accordingly, claims made under the Right to Repair Act are often referred to as SB800 claims. 2 Penal Code §637.2 creates a private right of action for a person injured under Penal Code section 630 et seq.

Penal Code section 631 ("Wiretapping") provides in pertinent part that it is unlawful for: Any person who, [1] by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or [2] who willfully and without

Penal Code section 632.5, subdivision (a): anyone who “maliciously and without the consent of all parties to the communication, intercepts, receives, or assists in intercepting or receiving a communication transmitted between cellular radio telephones or between any cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone” violates this statute.

Plaintiff alleges Penal Code Section 631(a) applies to internet communications and that all parties to the communication must consent to other parties reading and learning of the contents of communication. (Compl. ¶ 24). As alleged, software embedded on Defendant's website qualifies as a "machine, instrument, contrivance, or . . . other manner," as defined by Section 631. (Compl. ¶ 25).

Accordingly, Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs 1st cause of action for violation of Penal Code §631 is overruled.

Cause of Action for Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 631, subdivision (a): Defendant argues the this cause of action fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.

Defendant argues that the scope of Penal Code §§ 631 and 632 is limited to transmissions that included two or more individuals. Plaintiffs’ allegations are outside Penal Code § 631’s scope. D. Plaintiffs’ Consent Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ CIPA claim is barred by their consent.

First Cause of Action Plaintiffs first cause of action is for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, specifically, Penal Code section 631 .

Second Cause of Action for Violation of Penal Code Section 632 The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

Reasonable Expectation of Confidentiality Penal Code section 632 prohibits eavesdropping or intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. (Pen. Code, § 632(a).)

Penal Code section 632, part of California's Invasion of Privacy Act, provides in pertinent part that “[e]very person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication . . . records the confidential communication” by “means of any electronic amplifying or recording device” shall be punished as specified. (Pen. Code § 632(a).)

The statute of limitations for Penal Code section 632 claims is one year. (CCP § 340(a).) Unless a complaint affirmatively discloses on its face that the statute of limitations has run, a demurrer must be overruled. ( Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 881 [It must appear clearly and affirmatively that, upon the face of the complaint, the right of action is necessarily barred]; see also Moseley v.

Case Number: 19STCV39557 Hearing Date: April 26, 2021 Dept: 48 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION IN LMINE Plaintiffs Barry and Linda Baum and move to exclude testimony from Avrille Krom regarding a telephone conversation she overheard on the grounds she was eavesdropping under Penal Code section 632. Defendants argue that Krom was in the room when the conversation was taking place on a speakerphone and therefore there was no intentional eavesdropping.

Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 444, plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated Penal Code §632 based on the defendant’s unlawful wiretapping of his private phone conversations. The illegality of the alleged conduct was undisputed. The dispute was over whether it occurred.

Defendant now moves for leave to file a permissive cross-complaint against Plaintiff to assert a cause of action under Penal Code, section 632. Defendant contends that it has standing to bring this cross-claim under Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 879, as the recorded individuals were employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Mot. 7; Reply 6-7.)

Merits Penal Code § 632(a) makes it illegal for a person to “intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication . . . record [] the confidential communication.”

Dissemination of a recording made in violation of Penal Code section 632, subdivision (a) is not itself a violation of statute. As for the alleged violation of subdivision (d) of Penal Code section 632, it is barred by the litigation privilege as set forth above.

Reasonable Expectation of Confidentiality Penal Code section 632 prohibits eavesdropping or intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. (Pen. Code, § 632(a).)

Sixth COA (Violation of CIPA) Defendants argue that Penal Code section 632 only applies to eavesdropping or recording confidential communications by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device (except a radio) and therefore does not apply to emails.

Defendant contends that plaintiff’s FAC, as well as the matters subject to judicial notice, establish as a matter of law that the conversations recorded by defendant were not “confidential communications” within the meaning of Penal Code Section 632.

On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Lambert and Does 1-20 for: Statutory Violations of California Penal Code Section 632 et seq. A Case Management Conference is set for September 15, 2020. 1. Leave File Answer-In-Intervention Legal Standard “An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by . . . [j]oining a plaintiff . . . , [u]niting with a defendant . . .

Wagner now claims that Defendant’s counsel violated Penal Code section 632 by recording a phone call they had with Wagner. Even if this were true, it is not a new fact that relates to the prior motion to change venue and in no way affects whether this case should be heard in Riverside or San Diego County. Furthermore, this “fact” was available to Wagner at the time of the hearing, as he received Attorney Ibach’s declaration as part of the motion for change of venue prior to the hearing.

Plaintiff alleges in his opposition that Defendant instructed the minor child to conduct the recordings and is therefore and aider and abettor pursuant to Penal Code section 632. However, Penal Code section 633.5 does not prohibit a person from being recorded when that person reasonably believes that the party being recorded is engaged in domestic violence.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts of the elements of duty apart from the fiduciary duty of spouses, including the duty of care of cohabitants and the duty to refrain from conduct violating Penal Code section 632, subdivision (a). The Second Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts concerning breach of duty, causation and damages to withstand demurrer. Defendant is granted leave to serve and file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint by no later than September 11, 2012.

Penal Code §632(a) (emphasis added).

The parties reference Penal Code 632.

The complaint alleges three causes of action for (1) Invasion of Privacy, (2) Violations of California Penal Code §§ 632, 637.2, and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Defendant cites to Penal Code section 632 and Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 CA4th 736, 761 (Slesinger) in support of its objection to the photograph, however, neither is relevant.

The crux of the instant dispute concerns the applicability of Penal Code §632. This statute prohibits eavesdropping on a confidential communication using an electronic amplifying or recording device.

As explained below, Plaintiffs have not met their burden in showing such communications at issue were confidential under California Penal Code, Section 632. Analysis The Court finds that there no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to whether the communications of the Mezgers recorded by Bick were confidential under California Penal Code, Section 632. The Court finds that such communications of Plaintiffs at issue are not confidential for purposes of California Penal Code, Section 632.

Second Cause of Action Unlawful Recording and Eavesdropping of Communications in Violation of Penal Code Section 632 Defendant demurs to the Second Cause of Action for Unlawful Recording and Eavesdropping of Communications in Violation of Penal Code section 632. Penal Code section 632 bars the intentional recording of a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. ( Wilkins v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4 th 1066, 1079.)

Based on the lack of opposition it appears that Defendants (Chad Ruskey, Ronald Ruskey, Brian Groff, Deirdre Mammano, Business Solutions, LLC dba AD.IQ, and Employer Advertising, LLC dba BeRanked and AD.IQ), concede that video recordings possessed by Chad Ruskey are inadmissible under Penal Code section 632, subdivision (d). Also, based on the lack of opposition, Defendants appear to concede that the court has the authority to issue the requested protective order under Continental Ins. Co. v.

First Cause of Action Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code section 631, subdivision (a): Defendant argues the first cause of action fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.

Penal Code 637.2 allows a party to bring a civil claim against the person "who committed the violation" of Penal Code 632. It does not provide for vicarious liabiliuty for the acts of another. See Warden v. Kahn at 99Cal.App.3d 805. Mr. Coranado cannot eavesdrop on a conversation he is a party to. While he can wrongfully record a conversation he is a party to, the second cause of action is not pleaded with the requisite specificity and inappropriately refers to "defendants" generally. See Mittenhauer v.

The Penal Code §632 cause of action is governed by the underlying claim that forms its basis, in this case, invasion of privacy, and therefore the same two-year statute applies. Montalti v. Catanzariti (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 96, 98. The alleged wrongful acts that form the basis of the complaint occurred no later than 8/15/14, the date the complaint was filed.

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication of Issue 1 (1st cause of action for violation of Penal Code § 632) is DENIED. Plaintiffs have not negated Defendant Hudson’s affirmative defense of extortion, and even if they have, Defendant Hudson has raised triable issues of material fact regarding her statutory justification for at least the first two of her three surreptitious recordings pursuant to Penal Code § 633.5.

(“Plaintiff”) has sued Defendants Northern California Electrical Construction Industry (“NCECI”), Andre Gardner, David Vincent and Patrick Wirsing for violations of Business and Professions Code §17200 and violation of Penal Code §632. The section 17200 claim is based on alleged violations of Business and Professions Code §7521, 7523, Penal Code §632, Civil Code 1708.8(a) and Labor Code §108(b), (c). “Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps.

Defendants argue that violation of Penal Code § 632 is not a valid cause of action. Defendants additionally assert that Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and unintelligible. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the sixth cause of action is a valid cause of action for violations of California Penal Code § 632 and § 637.2. Plaintiff contends that contrary to the claims in Defendants' demurrer, violation of Penal Code § 632 is a valid cause of action.

Lee (“Defendants”) seek to exclude reference to two videos, which Defendants contend were taken on Defendants’ private property without Defendants’ consent in violation of Penal Code section 632. Section 632 prohibits the recording without consent of confidential communications. Defendants do not describe the contents of the videos and do not state whether the videos captured any confidential communications.

Based on these allegations, plaintiffs assert claims for (1) violations of CIPA, Penal Code section 630 et seq., (2) violations of the New Hampshire Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Statute, New Hampshire Revised Statutes 570-A:2, (3) violations of the Florida Wiretap Act, Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq., (4) violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat § 5703 et seq.,4 (5) violations of the Maryland Wiretap Act, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.

Plaintiffs' evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie claim under Penal Code ? 632. It is undisputed the that Defendant electronically recorded the parties' conversation on January 17, 2012. (See Evidence Cited in Support of Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("UMF") 7.)

Penal Code § 632(d) prohibits a person who has made an illegal recording from using that recording as evidence. It reads, in its entirety: “Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.” Defendants allege that Plaintiff made an illegal recording in violation of § 632.

(See Penal Code § 632.) As such, indulging the allegations in favor of the complaining party, it appears that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged outrageous conduct at this stage of the litigation.

As a result, on June 8, 2017, Defendant filed a civil complaint against both Plaintiffs in Kings County as Case No. 17C0159 alleging a violation of Penal Code § 632. On September 6, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to transfer the latter case from Kings County to Fresno County and consolidate it with the instant case.

Plaintiffs argue that because they have asserted a cause of action for violation of California Penal Code, Section 632, the recordings are necessarily admissible as evidence in the trial on Plaintiffs’ complaint; however, Griffin’s cross-complaint is not an action for violation of Penal Code Section 632, so that the recordings are not admissible in the trial on her cross-complaint. Plaintiffs argue that if the trials on the complaint and cross-complaint were held together: (1) Mr.

Plaintiff seeks to add causes of action for recording of confidential communications in violation of Penal Code section 632, subdivision (a) and stalking in violation of Civil Code section 1708.7. (Motion at pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff provides a copy of her proposed FAC and a redlined version showing the amendments. (Swanson Decl., Exs. 1-2.)

First Cause of Action for Violation of Penal Code Section 632 The first cause of action alleges Duncan and SCU violated Penal Code section 632 (“Section 632”) by re-recording and duplicating the confidential conversation between Plaintiff and Riesfield.

Penal Code § 632(a). A “confidential communication” is “any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication ... in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.” Penal Code § 632(c).

Motion by Plaintiff Mary Jane Nicolas-Carrion for Summary Judgment, or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of 5 Affirmative Defenses TENTATIVE RULING Penal Code §632(a) prohibits the intentional recording of confidential communications without the consent of the parties to those communications. There are 2 audio recordings at issue in the motion filed by Plaintiff MARY JANE NICOLAS-CARRION (“NICOLAS-CARRION”).

The first amended complaint alleges causes of action for (1) violation of Penal Code § 632 and (2) violation of Penal Code § 632.7. The motion for summary adjudication of issue one is denied.

Based on these allegations, plaintiffs assert claims for (1) violation of CIPA, Penal Code section 630 et seq. and (2) violation of the New Hampshire Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Statute, New Hampshire Revised Statutes 570-A:2. Plaintiff John Callan brings the first cause of action on behalf of a putative class of California email users. He and other individual plaintiffs who reside in California also bring individual claims under CIPA.

Here, Movants contend that there is no independent duty requiring an individual to disclose that he is creating a recording beyond what is stated in Penal Code section 632 and 632.7. (Demurrer at pg. 15.) Movants reason that Cross-Complainants are attempting to “revive the time-barred claims under Penal Code §§ 632 and 632.7” through the cause of action for fraudulent concealment. In opposition, Cross-Complainants argue that the FACC has sufficiently alleged that Cross-Defendant Leo owed them a duty.

The failure to notify Vision One of the call being recorded was a violation of Penal Code 632. (Plaintiff’s Claim, pg. 2 of 5.) Plaintiff has established that both matters involve purported recorded telephone calls between Leaf Capital and Vision One. Thus, the Court finds that there are common questions of law or fact in this instant action and the Small Claims Action filed by Vision One and consolidation appears appropriate. The small claims action of Vision One Optometry of West Covina v.

The First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), filed on 12/9/15, asserts causes of action for: Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion into Seclusion Invasion of Privacy—Penal Code §§ 632 & 637.2 The Final Status Conference is set for 6/25/18. A jury trial is set for 7/3/18.

Lundy for violation of Penal Code §632/637.2 (invasion of privacy). Plaintiff alleges that starting in or about November 2017, plaintiff and defendant became legally separated with a stipulated date of separation being November 13, 2017. After separation, the parties had legal disputes regarding the separation, subsequent divorce proceedings, and child custody issues. Complaint, ¶4. At some unknown date, defendant began secretly recording private communication between the parties.

Penal Code §§ 632 and 632.7, which prohibit the intentional interception or recording of a communication involving a cellular or cordless phone fail because there is no evidence of any telephonic communication between plaintiff and defendant.

Plaintiff’s counsel states the effect of the amendment will be to add several causes of action including recording of confidential information in violation of Penal Code §§632, 637.2, invasion of privacy and trespass. (Kim Decl. ¶7.) Defendants have not opposed the instant motion, and in light of the policy to liberally allow amendments in the absence of prejudice, the Plaintiff will be allowed to file an amended complaint. Based on the foregoing, the instant motion is GRANTED.

Penal Code section 632 [unlawful recording of communications].); 3. These records are the business records of the Admire firm. The Court overrules plaintiff's objection based on the records falling outside section 1157 because this is not a criminal action and there is a strong public policy in favor of confidentiality and so the mere allegation of criminal conduct is insufficient to defeat the claim of privilege.

On April 8, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) with new causes of action for recording of confidential communications in violation of Penal Code section 632, subdivision (a) and stalking in violation of Civil Code section 1708.7, finding that Defendants would be prejudiced before the July 25, 2022 trial date. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a FAC.

Penal Code § 630. (JMH’s citation to People v. Wilson 1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 598, 603, adds nothing to its argument. At issue there was “interception” by means of an answering service physically writing down messages after they were conveyed by telephone; there was no issue of a simultaneous duplication or of interception at the moment of sending the telephone message.)

First, at issue in the case was whether plaintiffs may seek at the pleading stage to recover both punitive damages as permitted by Civil Code section 3294 and statutory penalties for unlawful wiretapping pursuant to Penal Code section 637.2, subdivision (a) . ( Id. at 1256.) Here, however, statutory penalties are not issue. Second, the facts are inapposite as Clauson involved allegations of wiretapping, not a vehicular accident.

Further, Defendant has not established how these recordings are inadmissible under Penal Code section 632, when they were recorded under the exemption found under section 632. Pen. Code §§ 632, 633; See Telish v.

Penal Code section 632 has no relevance to Petitioners’ moving arguments made under the City Charter. Respondents have not addressed Penal Code section 632 in their “objections” and have not waived the procedural defect. Accordingly, the court does not reach Petitioners’ reply arguments related to Penal Code section 632. Even if the court were to consider this argument, Petitioners do not show, with evidence, that their communications were “confidential” within the meaning of section 632(c).

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion is meritless because Defendants’ motion is based on inadmissible evidence, viz., the recording and evidence obtained therefrom in violation of Penal Code section 632(d). (Opp. at 13.) This argument has no validity because Defendants did not need to submit evidence to satisfy their initial burden.

CIPA begins with Penal Code section 630, with definitions and limitations reflecting an era of cordless radio phones and cellular phones at the time.

In light of this ruling, it is unnecessary to decide whether the transcript is also inadmissible under Penal Code section 632(d). However, Proposition 8 limited the effect of section 632(d) such that evidence collected in violation of the statute is not per se inadmissible. People v. Guzman (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 184, 196. Defendant's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted.

The First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), filed on December 9, 2015, asserts causes of action for: Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion into Seclusion Invasion of Privacy—Penal Code §§ 632 & 637.2 On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the second and third causes of action, without prejudice. On July 5, 2018, a “Stipulation Re: Settlement” was filed; that day, the court ordered the action “dismissed with prejudice pursuant to CCP Section 664.6, with the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.”

Penal Code §632(b) defines “person” as “an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof...”

Penal Code § 632: Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to prevail because Defendant violated Penal Code § 632.

(Valdeon Decl., ¶ 4.) [7] Based on the evidence before the court, the court finds Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any real likelihood of success on the merits of their Penal Code section 632 claim. [8] The court finds Defendants express and specific denials more persuasive then the evidence proffered by Plaintiffs.

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).

Father shall not post this video online or share the video as it contains confidential information and was taken in violation of Penal Code §§630-632 and Family Code §2022. Father is ordered to file a declaration with this court on or before December 22, 2023, certifying that he has complied with this order. If he fails to do so, the court will refer the violation to the Marin County District Attorney’s office for investigation and prosecution, as authorized by Family Code §2022(b).