Shooker

Shooker v. Superior Court

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 923·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1331·2003 Daily Journal DAR 9869·4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 334·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7952
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 28, 2003B167889California2,655 words

Opinion

Opinion

VOGEL (MIRIAM A.), J.

We hold in this writ proceeding that the designation of a party as an expert trial witness is not in itself an implied waiver of the party’s attorney-client privilege. If the designation is withdrawn before the party discloses a significant part of a privileged communication (as in this case), or before it is known with reasonable certainty that the party will actually testify as an expert, the privilege is secure; if the party produces privileged documents or testifies as an expert (such as by stating his opinion), the privilege is waived.

FACTS

A.

In the early 1990’s, Douglas Shooker became a “managing director” (a venture capital partner) at Pacific Capital Group, Inc., a corporation owned by Gary Winnick. In 1993, Shooker and Winnick allegedly entered a partnership agreement. The essence of the deal as it is now characterized by Shooker was that he would not receive a salary from Pacific Capital or the partnership but would receive a 15 percent interest in partnership ventures pursued while Shooker was a managing director at Pacific Capital. One such venture was Telecommunications Development Corporation (TDC), which involved the development…

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.