In Albertson v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 796, the district attorney had served a subpoena duces tecum seeking the defendant's mental health treatment files on a mental health facility where the defendant had been moved pending trial on an SVPA petition. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to deny the district attorney's requests. (25 Cal.4th at p. 801.) On review, the Supreme Court did not need to decide whether the appellate court had properly interpreted the SVPA because amendments to the SVPA (specifically, 6603, subd. (c), discussed in detail post) had been enacted since the appellate decision and were dispositive of the issues presented on review. (Albertson, supra, at p. 803.) The district attorney's use of a subpoena duces tecum was not an issue in that case. In Albertson, supra, 25 Cal.4th at page 805, the Supreme Court interpreted section 6603, subdivision (c)(1) as providing "an exception to section 5328's general rule of confidentiality of treatment records, and allows the district attorney access to treatment record information, insofar as that information is contained in an updated evaluation. To the extent there might be any ambiguity in this regard, the history described below confirms that in an SVPA proceeding a local government's designated counsel may obtain, through updated mental evaluations, otherwise confidential information concerning an alleged SVP's treatment." Section 5328 was enacted in 1972. (Albertson, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 800, fn. 3.) Section 5328 provides in part that "all information and records obtained in the course of providing services under ... Division 6 (commencing with Section 6000) ... to either voluntary or involuntary recipients of services shall be confidential." The SVPA, sections 6600 through 6609.3, was added to division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in 1995. (Albertson, supra, at p. 800, fn. 3.)