California Legal Brief

The Rule of Spring Oaks Capital SPV, LLC v. Fowler is that a party who fails to properly disclose witness names and addresses in response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 96 request cannot call that undisclosed witness at trial, under circumstances where the responding party only provided the witness's role without specific name identification and the requesting party properly objected.

Appeal from judgment after court trial in Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

Defendant Appellant was Jamice Fowler — the debtor who challenged Spring Oaks' debt collection case against her.

Plaintiff Respondent was Spring Oaks Capital SPV, LLC — the debt buyer who acquired Fowler's credit account and sued to recover the alleged delinquent balance.

The suit sounded in debt collection on common counts for account stated and money lent. No cross-claims were described.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Spring Oaks acquired a credit account in Fowler's name from the Bank of Missouri and filed suit to recover the alleged delinquent balance. Fowler served a section 96 request for witness disclosure approximately six weeks before trial. Spring Oaks responded identifying Kyle Collins as the "most likely" custodian witness but stated it had "numerous custodians" and hadn't determined which would appear. At trial, Spring Oaks called Veronica Russell instead of Collins to testify as custodian of records, without having disclosed Russell's name in its section 96 response.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Fowler's in limine motion to exclude Russell's testimony and admitted Spring Oaks' Exhibits 1 and 2 over hearsay objections, ruling that Spring Oaks' disclosure was sufficient because it indicated Collins might be replaced by another custodian with the same knowledge, and that the business records exception applied to the exhibits.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Fowler's motion in limine and permitting Spring Oaks to present testimony from Russell when she was not identified by name in Spring Oaks' section 96 response. 2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Exhibits 1 and 2 over hearsay objections when the foundation for the business records exception was not properly established.

The Appellate Court held that Spring Oaks' section 96 response failed to adequately disclose Russell because it only identified her role as one of several unnamed custodians rather than providing her specific name as required by statute, and that the business records exception to hearsay was not established where the testifying custodian was unfamiliar with the original creditor's record-keeping practices and could not lay proper foundation for documents created by that creditor.

The case is inapplicable when the responding party properly identifies witnesses by specific name in their section 96 response, when an exception under section 97(b) applies (such as good faith effort to comply), when the testifying custodian has personal knowledge of the record-keeping practices of the entity that created the business records, or when proper foundation is laid under Evidence Code section 1271 by a qualified witness familiar with the original record-keeper's procedures.

The case leaves open whether substantial compliance with section 96 might be achieved through other specific factual circumstances not presented here, the precise contours of what constitutes "good faith effort to comply" under section 97(b)(5), and whether alternative methods of authenticating transferred account records might satisfy evidentiary requirements in debt collection cases.