{"id":234,"date":"2026-01-30T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-30T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=234"},"modified":"2026-01-30T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-30T12:00:00","slug":"santa-clara-valley-water-v-eisenberg-h052913-confidential-reports-injunction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=234","title":{"rendered":"Santa Clara Valley Water District v. Eisenberg \u2014 Preliminary Injunction Compelling Director to Return Confidential Investigation Reports Affirmed"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Santa Clara Valley Water District v. Eisenberg<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
6th District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-30<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
H052913<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Claim and Delivery, Preliminary Injunction, Conversion, Confidential Investigation Reports, Public Boards<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Rebecca Eisenberg is one of seven elected directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In January 2024, she was given access to review at a Water District facility two printed investigation reports prepared by an outside law firm. The Reports concerned (1) staff complaints alleging misconduct by Eisenberg, and (2) Eisenberg’s own complaint about her complainants. Shortly after starting her review, Eisenberg removed the Reports from the facility, allegedly without permission. She refused to return them after multiple Board requests, and the Board censured her.<\/p>\n

The Water District sued Eisenberg for conversion and related claims, then filed a writ-of-possession application under the claim-and-delivery law (Code of Civil Procedure section 511.010 et seq.). The trial court issued a writ and turnover order. Eisenberg posted an undertaking under section 515.020 to keep the Reports pending the case. The Water District then moved for a preliminary injunction compelling Eisenberg to return the Reports. The trial court granted the injunction. Eisenberg appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. On the threshold legal question, the court held that the claim-and-delivery law (sections 511.010 et seq.) does not preclude a plaintiff from also seeking a preliminary injunction. Section 516.050 expressly preserves other remedies, including injunctive relief; the Water District’s prior writ-of-possession application and Eisenberg’s undertaking did not strip the trial court of authority to grant a preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n

On the merits of the injunction, the court applied the traditional likelihood-of-success and balance-of-harms framework. The Water District showed it was likely to succeed on its conversion claim because the Reports were the District’s property, Eisenberg removed them without permission, and she refused to return them despite Board demands. On the balance of harms, the District faces ongoing reputational, legal, and operational injury so long as confidential investigation Reports are out of its control, while Eisenberg’s interest in keeping the Reports outside the District’s possession was minimal \u2014 she retained appellate and other rights without holding the originals.<\/p>\n

The court also addressed and rejected Eisenberg’s various procedural and standing challenges, including her arguments related to attorney work product and Board internal procedures. After issuing the opinion, the court modified one footnote (substituting ‘work product’ for ‘client’) and corrected two references in the body opinion without changing the judgment.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n