Yee v. Superior Court
Annotate this CaseDuring an investigation of the handling of unclaimed property due to be escheated to the state, the California Controller sought to audit Thrivent, an out-of-state insurance company doing business in California, with respect to more than 20 years and policies issued across the country. The parties stipulated to a protective discovery order that “Confidential Information” and “Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information” “shall be used only for purposes of this litigation.” The Controller successfully moved to compel production of Thrivent’s records of policies having a nexus to California. According to Thrivent, the Controller’s counsel assured the court that the Controller and Office of the State Controller (SCO) would not use information obtained in discovery to conduct the audit. The documents Thrivent produced, marked “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” were provided only to an independent expert hired by outside attorneys. The outside auditor found that only a few policies involved potentially escheatable property. The Controller abandoned the audit. The trial court granted the Controller judgment on the pleadings. Thrivent then sued the SCO for abuse of process. The court of appeal found the SCO had immunity under the Government Tort Claims Act. A cause of action for abuse of process requires some harm to the plaintiff caused by the abuse of process. Whatever the motive of the SCO employees who sought and obtained the discovery, there was no harm without an audit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.