Melendrez

Melendrez v. Superior Court

Good Law
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 343·215 Cal. App. 4th 1343·2013 WL 1801708
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2013B243320California5,542 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

A bankrupt corporation which purportedly only existed as a shell through which personal injury claims were passed on to its insurer for resolution was sued for personal injury. Pursuant to its reorganization plan, the action was submitted to its insurers, who provided a defense. When discovery was propounded to the corporation, the corporation’s attorney (who had been provided by the insurers) filed substantive responses to the discovery, but represented to the court that the responses could not be verified, as the corporation had no officer, director, employee, or agent who could verify the discovery responses. The personal injury plaintiff challenged the sufficiency of the discovery responses. The trial court agreed that, under the circumstances, no individual existed who could verify the responses, and, at the corporation’s request, simply deemed them verified. The plaintiff filed the instant writ petition, challenging the trial court’s order.

As we shall discuss, the law provides that an attorney can verify responses on behalf of a corporation, although such an act constitutes a limited waiver of the attorney-client and work product privileges with respect to the…

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.