Garstang

Garstang v. Superior Court

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1024·39 Cal. App. 4th 526·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 84·95 Daily Journal DAR 14239·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8279
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 23, 1995B088019California2,881 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nott, J.

Meg Garstang has petitioned this court for an extraordinary writ of mandate directing the superior court to set aside its order denying her motion to compel further answers to deposition questions.

We are asked to decide whether communications disclosed during mediation sessions before an ombudsperson employed by a private educational institution are privileged. We conclude they are protected by the qualified privilege set forth in this state’s Constitution.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Garstang worked for the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). On April 1, 1994, she sued Caltech and three coworkers, Cathy Fontenette, Kerry Etheridge and Christina Smith for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to the complaint, Garstang was hired in 1989 as a secretary and shortly thereafter was promoted to the position of assistant to Russell Giambelluca, a division administrator. In March 1992, she was again promoted. Following these promotions the individual defendants told third persons that Garstang had “traded sexual favors for job advancement.” Caltech “approved, consented to and ratified” these false statements.

In 1992 and…

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.