Coito

Coito v. Superior Court

Bad Law
142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607·2012 Cal. LEXIS 5823·54 Cal. 4th 480·2012 WL 2369186·278 P.3d 860
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 25, 2012S181712California8,073 words

Opinion

Opinion

Liu, J.

In California, an attorney’s work product is protected by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.010 et seq.; all further unlabeled statutory references are to the Code of Civ. Proc.) Absolute protection is afforded to writings that reflect “an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” (§ 2018.030, subd. (a).) All other work product receives qualified protection; such material “is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” (§ 2018.030, subd. (b).)

In this case, we decide what work product protection, if any, should be accorded two items: first, recordings of witness interviews conducted by investigators employed by defendant’s counsel, and second, information concerning the identity of witnesses from whom defendant’s counsel has obtained statements. Defendant objected to plaintiff’s requests for discovery of these items, invoking the work product privilege. The trial court sustained the objection, concluding as a matter of law that the recorded witness interviews were entitled to…

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.