ONCALL
...Evidence
......Privileges
42 Cards On This Topic:

D's online postings about contractor were not sufficiently connected to State License Board proceedings, but were like press releases to communicate with the public; as such, they were not protected by the litigation privilege.

In newspaper shield law case, better policy would have been to encourage parties to allow disputed materials to be examined in camera, to resolve the matter short of a contempt adjudication.

To compel disclosure of minor's patient records after health care provider makes an H&S §123115(a)(2) detriment determination, minor's representative must show provider denied the request for records in bad faith.

No waiver of psychotherapist-patient privilege by tier one offender not on probation; patient-litigant exception not applicable in a PC §290.5 termination proceeding.

Waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege not applicable to tier one offender not on probation merely because s/he exercises statutory right to petition for termination of registration.

For Pitchess review, court must examine all potentially responsive documents the custodian produces and inquire into the documents the custodian opted ••not•• to produce.

Counsel's knowing use of D's privileged documents, impermissibly downloaded by counsel's client from D's email, was proper ground for counsel's disqualification.

Kites from multiple inmates sent by one inmate to his atty not a confidential communication based merely on use of jail's mail—conclusory assertion of A/C privilege is insufficient.

As D's former stmts., introduced at PC §1172.6 evid. hearing on resentencing, did not change his final judgment, self-incrim. privilege and use immunity doctrine not implicated.

Surgeon claiming whistleblower status not likely to prevail on employer retaliation suit where claims were based on communications protected by litigation privilege.

News outlet’s recordings were subject to and protected by the state’s shield law and by the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.

The “primary purpose” test applies to claims of attorney-client privilege of dual purpose communications rather than the broader “because of” test.

There is no accountant-client privilege for preparation of tax returns by attorneys.

By relying on jury notes to defend a Batson/Wheeler petition, the DA put those notes at issue and impliedly waived any work product privilege.

Statutory exceptions to the marital privilege do not include the spouses’ separation prior to dissolution or for the marriage becoming nonviable.

Upon realizing the privileged nature of the inadvertently produced psychological records, the prosecutor should have stopped reading and followed the State Fund procedure.

To determine whether a party lost the protection of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the court looks to which party was the first to “tender,” i.e., to raise, the issue in litigation.

The identity of a nontestifying expert is not entitled to absolute work product protection; steps to determine whether the identity is entitled to qualified work product privilege.

Privileged information contained in billing invoices submitted in support of an attorney's fees claim may be redacted.

Marital privilege explained.

Whether act of providing attorney-client memos to third party waives the privilege depends on purpose for which disclosure was made.

Determining when material is covered by the attorney-client privilege.

Work product defined.

Disclosure of work product to a third party does not waive the protection unless such disclosure is made to an adversary in litigation or has substantially increased the opportunities for potential adversaries to obtain the information.

Express versus implied waivers.

When finding a waiver of work-product privilege, the court must tailor the disclosure to the needs of the opposing party.

GC §6253.9(b)(2) requiring a public records requester to pay for "data compilation, extraction, or programming” does not include redaction of exempt material from otherwise disclosable electronic records.

Defendant could not overcome newsperson's shield law immunity where he could not make a threshold showing of a reasonable probability the information would assist in his defense.

Pursuant to the CPRA, one may inspect any public record subject to disclosure that is in the possession of a state agency even if the record was not prepared, owned, or used by that agency.

The CPRA catchall exemption may apply to requests for PC §832.7 officer-related records.

Plaintiffs asserted a cognizable privacy interest under the CA Const. such that their complaint, challenging CANRA's statutory mandate requiring reporting of patients who admitted to viewing child pornography, survived demurrer.

Common interest privilege prevented plaintiff from showing a probability of prevailing on the merits upon his anti-SLAPP motion, and plaintiff could not show defendant's actual malice to negate privilege.

Litigation privilege did not bar attorney-plaintiff's claims where client-defendant engaged in tortious conduct depriving attorney of fees.

Spoliation exception to the litigation privilege did not apply where defendant did not deprive plaintiff of use of his damaged car as evidence.

Pitchess statutes are not violated when sheriff's dept. informs prosecutors that an officer who is a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution may have exonerating or impeaching material in his personnel file.

Psychotherapist-patient privilege did not apply where child and family counselor testified she was not minor's therapist.

Prejudicial error to not instruct the jury on attorney-defendant's defense of litigation privilege where his extortion threats occurred while he was considering and contemplating litigation in good faith.

Demurrer improperly sustained as to invasion of privacy cause of action where litigation privilege did not apply because no litigation was pending, raising a question as to whether it was imminent.

Plaintiff did not establish that pre-acquisition due diligence documents were subject to the attorney-client privilege.

Pre-acquisition due diligence documents were not subject to attorney work product doctrine.

GC §6253.9(b) allows a public agency to be reimbursed by a requester of public records where the agency incurs costs to acquire and utilize special computer programming to extract exempt material from electronic records.

Child pornography reporting requirements take precedence over psychotherapist-patient privilege.