Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 17, 2025C099319California10,632 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feinberg, J.

BACKGROUND

I. Johnson’s first amended complaint, filed in March 2019, alleged fifteen claims against Caltrans, including for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. On January 10, 2022, while the suit was pending, Paul Brown, an attorney for Caltrans, sent an email to Nicolas Duncan, who was Johnson’s supervisor at the time and not a named party in the litigation. The email contained a “CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE” that stated: “This is a privileged attorney-client communication and/or is covered by the attorney work-product doctrine. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any

2 unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Do not print, copy or forward.” Unbeknownst to Caltrans, Duncan took a photograph of the email and sent it to Johnson, who gave it to his attorney, John Shepardson. It is unclear why Duncan did this, and the unredacted email itself is not a part of the record. At this point in the case, trial was set for April 18, 2022. The next day, Shepardson emailed Caltrans’s counsel, Christopher Sims,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.