Holmes

Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co. LLC

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 878·191 Cal. App. 4th 1047·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 33·111 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 424
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 2011No. C059133California10,643 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Scotland, J.

*1051 Opinion

Plaintiff Gina M. Holmes appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants Petrovich Development Company, LLC, and Paul Petrovich in her lawsuit for sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, violation of the right to privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 1 She contends that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary adjudication with respect to the causes of action for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, and that the jury’s verdict as to the remaining causes of action must be reversed due to evidentiary and instructional errors. We disagree and shall affirm the judgment.

Among other things, we conclude that e-mails sent by Holmes to her attorney regarding possible legal action against defendants did not constitute “ ‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ ” within the meaning of Evidence Code section 952. This is so because Holmes used a computer of defendant company to send the e-mails even though (1) she had been told of the company’s policy that its computers were to be used only for company business and that employees were prohibited from using them to send or…

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.