Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Superior Court

The issue presented in this case is whether an attorney’s duty to release all “client papers and property” to a former client upon request (rule 3-700, Rules Prof. Conduct, hereafter rule 3-700) requires disclosure of the attorney’s “absolute” work product. (Code Civ. Proc., 2018, subd. (c).) We conclude, on the facts presented, that petitioner’s former counsel has waived any right it might otherwise have to protect its absolute work product from disclosure to petitioners.

I

The former client in this case is petitioner Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (hereafter MGM). The attorney is Christensen, White, Miller, Fink & Jacobs (hereafter Christensen). Christensen represented MGM (then known as MGM/UA) and its majority shareholders in a merger transaction which took place on November 1, 1990. MGM is now suing those majority shareholders and others, alleging that they engineered the merger by means of fraud and deception for their own financial benefit, leaving MGM financially unable to operate. Petitioner MGM is represented by White & Case (hereafter Case). Real parties in interest are represented by Hufstedler, Kaus & Ettinger. Those parties include MGM/UA’s majority…