(a) In any civil action the factual foundation for which establishes a cause of action for a violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 15600) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), any information that is acquired through discovery and is protected from disclosure by a stipulated protective order shall remain subject to the protective order, except for information that is evidence of abuse of an elder or dependent adult as described in Sections 15610.30, 15610.57, and 15610.63 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
§ 2017.320.Evidence subject to pre-existing protective order; evidence of abuse excluded from
Title 4. Civil Discovery Act · Chapter 2. Scope of Discovery · Article 3. Violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act · Enacted 2004 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 2017.320 keeps discovery in an elder or dependent-adult abuse case under an existing protective order unless the material is redacted evidence of abuse, allows that redacted evidence to be filed with notice, makes it public after 30 days absent good cause for continued protection, and bars sealing a defendant's name.
Full Text of § 2017.320
(b) In that instance, after redacting information in the document that is not evidence of abuse of an elder or dependent adult as described in Sections 15610.30, 15610.57, and 15610.63 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a party may file that particularized information with the court. The party proposing to file the information shall offer to meet and confer with the party from whom the information was obtained at least one week prior to filing that information with the court.
(c) The filing party shall give concurrent notice of the filing with the court and its basis to the party from whom the information was obtained.
(d) Any filed information submitted to the court shall remain confidential under any protective order for 30 days after the filing and shall be part of the public court record thereafter, unless an affected party petitions the court and shows good cause for a court protective order.
(e) The burden of showing good cause shall be on the party seeking the court protective order.
(f) A stipulated protective order may not be recognized or enforced by the court to prevent disclosure of information filed with the court pursuant to subdivision (b), absent a showing of any of the following:
(1) The information is privileged under existing law.
WESTLAW © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 § 2017.320. Evidence subject to pre-existing protective order; evidence of abuse excluded from..., CA CIV PRO § 2017.320
(2) The information is not evidence of abuse of an elder or dependent adult as described in Sections 15610.30, 15610.57, and 15610.63 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(3) The party seeking to uphold the confidentiality of the information has demonstrated that there is a substantial probability that prejudice will result from the disclosure and that the party's interest in the information cannot be adequately protected through redaction.
(g) If the court denies the petition for a court protective order, it shall redact any part of the filed information it finds is not evidence of abuse of an elder or dependent adult, as described in Sections 15610.30, 15610.57, and 15610.63 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Nothing in this subdivision or in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (f) permits the sealing or redacting of a defendant's name in any information made available to the public.
(h) Nothing in this section applies to or affects an action for professional negligence against a health care provider.
Plain-English Summary
This section works alongside Section 2017.310 to keep protective orders from quietly hiding evidence of elder or dependent-adult abuse. Information obtained through discovery in a covered abuse action generally stays subject to a stipulated protective order, except for information that is itself evidence of the abuse described in the Welfare and Institutions Code, which the section carves out of that protection.
To surface that carved-out evidence, a party must first redact anything in the document that is not evidence of abuse, then may file the particularized, redacted information with the court, but only after offering to meet and confer with the party from whom the information came at least a week before filing, and giving that party concurrent notice of the filing and its basis.
Once filed, the information stays confidential under the existing protective order for 30 days, after which it becomes part of the public court record unless an affected party petitions the court and shows good cause to keep a protective order in place, with the burden of showing that good cause resting on whoever wants continued protection. A court can deny that petition only on the same three grounds available under Section 2017.310, privilege, a lack of genuine abuse evidence, or demonstrated, redaction-proof prejudice, and even a denied petition still results in redaction of anything found not to be abuse evidence. As with the companion section, none of this ever permits sealing or redacting a defendant's name, and the whole section is inapplicable to a professional negligence action against a health care provider.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a protective order automatically keep evidence of abuse confidential in these cases?
No, information that is itself evidence of the described elder or dependent-adult abuse is carved out of the protective order's coverage under this section.
What must a party do before filing redacted abuse evidence with the court?
Offer to meet and confer with the party from whom the information was obtained at least one week before filing, and give that party concurrent notice of the filing and its basis.
How long does filed information stay confidential once submitted to the court?
30 days, after which it becomes part of the public court record unless an affected party petitions for continued protection and shows good cause.
On what grounds can a court keep filed information under a protective order beyond 30 days?
The same three grounds as Section 2017.310: the information is privileged, it is not evidence of the described abuse, or disclosure would cause substantial, redaction-proof prejudice.
Can a defendant's name be sealed or redacted under this section?
No, and the section does not apply to a professional negligence action against a health care provider.
Amendment History
(Added by Stats.2004, c. 182 (A.B.3081), § 23, operative July 1, 2005.)
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the West's Annotated California Codes / Thomson Reuters. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: protective order elder abuse discovery californiafiling redacted evidence elder abuse case