People v. Superior Court

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323·2001 Cal. LEXIS 3245·2001 Daily Journal DAR 5137·25 Cal. 4th 703·23 P.3d 563
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 24, 2001S063662California17,116 words

Opinion

Opinion

George, J.

Pursuant to a warrant issued by respondent superior court, law enforcement authorities seized numerous documents from real parties in interest Gary Laff and Jerry Widawski, who are attorneys suspected of criminal conduct. Real parties in interest (hereafter the attorneys) requested that the superior court conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether any of the seized documents were privileged. The court sealed the documents and refused to proceed with the hearing unless the People, represented by the district attorney’s office, agreed to pay one-half the cost of the services of a special master appointed by the superior court to review the documents. The Court of Appeal denied the People’s petition for writ of mandate, which sought to compel the superior court to conduct the hearing without requiring the People to contribute to the cost of a special master. The appellate court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 639, subdivision (a) (4), which permits a compulsory reference when necessary for the information of the court in a special proceeding, authorizes the appointment of a referee to assist in ruling upon the claims of privilege asserted by the attorneys.…

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.