Cal. Codes » Evidence Code / DIVISION 8. PRIVILEGES / CHAPTER 3. General Provisions Relating to Privileges
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 917 (2026)

General Provisions Relating to Privileges

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)If a privilege is claimed on the ground that the matter sought to be disclosed is a communication made in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client, lawyer referral service-client, physician-patient, psychotherapist-patient, clergy-penitent, marital or domestic partnership, sexual assault counselor-victim, domestic violence counselor-victim, or human trafficking caseworker-victim relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential.

(b)A communication between persons in a relationship listed in subdivision (a) does not lose its privileged character for the sole reason that it is communicated by electronic means or because persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage of electronic communication may have access to the content of the communication.

(c)For purposes of this section, “electronic” has the same meaning provided in Section 1633.2 of the Civil Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty., 10 Cal. App. 5th 1083 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty., 10 Cal. App. 5th 1083 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “(Evid. Code, § 917, subd. (a); Costco, supra, 47 Cal.”
People v. Bryant, Smith & Wheeler, 334 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 917.) The opponent has the burden to prove otherwise [citation] by a preponderance of the evidence [citation].”
North v. Superior Court, 502 P.2d 1305 (Cal. 1972). · cites it 6× “Code, § 980, comment; italics added.) Further a communication between such persons "is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden to establish that the communication was not confidential.”
People v. Von Villas, 11 Cal. App. 4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “, whether or not a party, has a privilege during the marital relationship and afterwards to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a communication if he claims the privilege and the communication was made in confidence between him and the other spouse while…”
People v. Tamborrino, 215 Cal. App. 3d 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “Appellant contends that the court's questions violated the attorney-client privilege denying his right to counsel, and the error is reversible per se. A. Violation of Privilege (1) The questions directed by the court to the defendant can only be properly characterized as within…”
Donaldson v. Superior Court, 672 P.2d 110 (Cal. 1983). · cites it 2× “The foregoing circumstances, coupled with the statutory presumption that a conversation between spouses is presumed to have been made in confidence (Evid. Code, § 917 ...), constituted a sufficient showing by petitioner to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 219 P.3d 736 (Cal. 2009). “) That Costco engaged Hensley to provide it with legal advice and that the opinion letter was a communication between Costco’s attorney (Hensley) and Costco are undisputed. The letter was “confidential,” defined as “information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer…”
Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of New York, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “(Evid. Code, § 917.) At that point, the burden of proof shifts to the party opposing the privilege claim.”
2,022 Ranch L.L.C. v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. App. 4th 1377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 917; 4 Wellpoint, supra, 59 Cal.”
People v. Mickey, 818 P.2d 84 (Cal. 1991). “(Evid. Code, § 917.) The opponent has the burden to prove otherwise (ibid.”
Oiye v. Fox, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “(Evid. Code, § 917.) Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff’s medical records should ordinarily be considered private.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Superior Court, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1076 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “, a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship.”
Show all 80 citing cases →
Cal. Evidence Code § 917(a): 7 cases
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins., 265 F.R.D. 510 (E.D. Cal. 2010).
Kandel v. Brother Int'l Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
Renovate Am., Inc. v. Lloyd's Syndicate 1458, No. 3:19-cv-01456 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020).
Renovate Am., Inc. v. Lloyd's Syndicate 1458, No. 3:19-cv-01456 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2020).
Skanska USA Civil West California Dist. Inc. v. Nat'l Interstate Ins. Co., No. 3:20-cv-00367 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021).
Cal. Evidence Code § 917(b): 2 cases
In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Fourth Dimension Software v. Der Deutsches Reiseburo GMBh & Co., OHG, No. 5:19-cv-05561 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.