Oxy Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004)

green · 149 citation events across 10 courts. Showing the 32 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 32

Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200420152026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2017)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Cal. LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 874 , 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621, 635 (2004).

green Seahaus La Jolla Owners Ass'n v. Superior Court (2014)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App. · 7 citations in this opinion

(See OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 887-888 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ] (OXY Resources) [parties who possess common legal interests may share privileged information without losing the protection afforded by the privilege].) However, several rulings by the trial court have declined to allow such a privilege to be asserted by the Association, or have concluded any privilege was waived, regarding the communications received at the meetings …

green Behunin v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2017)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App. · 5 citations in this opinion

(See OXY Resources, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 896 [in camera review is appropriate to determine “whether disclosure to a third party was reasonably necessary to accomplish the lawyer’s purpose in the consultation”].) There is insufficient evidence in this record for us to reach a contrary conclusion.

green Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

(OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 889 (OXY Resources).) It does not mean there is “an expanded attorney-client relationship encompassing all parties and counsel who share a common interest.” (Ibid.) The doctrine is based on Evidence Code sections 912 and 952: “A disclosure in confidence of a communication that is protected by a privilege provided by Section 954 (lawyer-client privilege) . . . , when disclosure is reasonably necessa…

OXY Resources

green Roush v. Seagate Technology, LLC (2007)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

In that situation the concept is referred to as the “common interest doctrine.” (OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 889 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ] (OXY Resources).) There is little California case law discussing the common interest doctrine.

green Temurian v. Rasiah CA2/2 (2025)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(See OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 891 [“If a disclosing party does not have a reasonable expectation that a third party will preserve the confidentiality of the information, then any applicable privileges are waived.”].) Temurian attested the confidential documents regarding Vista’s business sent to Rasiah were intended to be forwarded to Feldman.

green Samson Tug and Barge Co., Inc v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union (2023)

Rule Authority · D. Alaska

Cal. LLC v. Superior Court of Solano Cnty., 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 621, 635 (Cal. App. 2004)). 96 Id. at 1360 (quoting OXY Res.

green Southcentral Foundation v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (2022)

Rule Authority · D. Alaska

California LLC v. Superior Ct., 115 Cal. App. 4th 874, 892 (2004), as modified (Mar. 4, 2004) (explaining that “[a] common interest agreement, such as the Joint Defense Agreement, strengthens the case against waiver, but such an agreement is neither a requirement nor a guarantee”).

explaining that “[a] common interest agreement, such as the Joint Defense Agreement, strengthens the case against waiver, but such an agreement is neither a requirement nor a guarantee”

green Getz v. Super. Ct. (2021)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

Section 6254, subdivision (k), “allows agencies to withhold ‘[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.’ [Citation.] By ‘its reference to the privileges contained in the Evidence Code,’ section 6254(k) ‘has made the attorney-client privilege applicable to public records.’ [Citation.]” (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Cour…

green Getz v. Superior Court CA3 (2021)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

green Golden Door Properties v. Superior Court (2020)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(Oxy Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 888 (Oxy Resources).) If Newland and the County shared attorney-client privileged documents between themselves, a waiver issue arises. 56 Persons who possess common legal interests may share attorney-client privileged information without waiving the privilege.

green Kevin Risto v. Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (2020)

Rule Authority · C.D. Cal.

California LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 874, 890 , 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 621, 636 (2004), as modified (Mar. 4, 2004).

green Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Super. Ct. (2020)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

green Wood v. Super. Ct. (2020)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

Rules Evid., rule 501, 28 U.S.C.) "Because the Federal Rules of Evidence provide that principles of common law govern rules of privilege, federal courts have the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis." (OXY Resources Cal. LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 888 (OXY).) "Unlike the federal courts, '[t]he courts of this state . . . are not free to create new privileges as a matter of judicial policy and must apply only those which have…

green Wood v. Super. Ct. (2020)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

green City of Petaluma v. Super. Ct. (2016)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 886 (OXY Resources).) Writ review is appropriate here because the trial court’s order compelling production of documents and testimony violates a privilege allegedly held by the City.

green City of Petaluma v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (2016)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 886 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ] (OXY Resources).) Writ review is appropriate here because the trial court’s order compelling production of documents and testimony violates a privilege allegedly held by the City.

green People v. Dolan CA2/2 (2015)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 981 (Meza); Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 754, 770 ; Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 915 ; OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 891 (OXY Resources); Evid.

green People v. Ortiz CA4/2 (2014)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

Specifically, on July 24, 2008 (approximately three years after the complaint was filed 14This principle “has been variously referred to as the ‘joint defense’ doctrine, the ‘common interest’ doctrine, and the ‘pooled information’ doctrine.” (OXY Resources California, LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 888 (OXY).) 37 in the instant case), defendant was arrested for unauthorized marijuana cultivation (Health & Saf.

green St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(O’Grady v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1429 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 ] (O’Grady).) Review of discovery rulings by extraordinary writ proceedings “is generally limited to ‘situations where (1) the issues presented are of first impression and of general importance to the trial courts and to the profession [citation], (2) the order denying discovery prevents a party from having a fair opportunity to litigate his or her case [citation], or (3) the ruling compelling d…

green People v. Shrier (2010)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

Thus, all . . . communications among the joint defense group members and/or their clients in connection with the joint defense group members’ representation of their respective clients are conducted and protected pursuant to California Evidence Code section 912(d) . . . .” “Typically, a joint defense agreement protects information shared by defendants after a lawsuit has been filed, and it serves the purpose of protecting from disclosure the joint defendants’ trial strategie…

green Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009)

Rule Authority · Cal.

Plaintiffs also cite OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 896 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ], and Cornish v. Superior Court, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at page 480 , where the appellate court observed that notwithstanding Evidence Code section 915, subdivision (a), courts have allowed in camera review of information claimed to be privileged where necessary to determine whether an exception to the privilege applies.

green Dawe v. Corrections USA (2009)

Rule Authority · E.D. Cal.

“An expectation of confidentiality ... is not enough to avoid waiver.” OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 889, 891 , 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 (1st Dist.2004) (emphasis added).

green Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 891 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ] (OXY).) However, “work product protection ‘is not waived except by a disclosure wholly inconsistent with the purpose of the privilege, which is to safeguard the attorney’s work product and trial preparation.’ ” (Ibid.) Under the common interest doctrine, an attorney can disclose work product to an attorney representing a separate client without waiving the attorney work prod…

green Zurich American Insurance v. Superior Court (2007)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

Code (1966 ed.) p. 444.)” (Benge v. Superior Court (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 336, 346 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 275 ].) California courts have held that “the ‘privilege extends to communications which are intended to be confidential, if they are *1496 made to attorneys, to family members, business associates, or agents of the party or his attorneys on matters of joint concern, when disclosure of the communication is reasonably necessary to further the interest of the litigant.’ ([INA, sup…

green Union Bank of California, N.A. v. Superior Court (2005)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(See OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 886 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ].) Appellate review of discovery rulings is governed by the abuse of discretion standard.

green People v. Jiang (2005)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

“It is no less the client’s communication to the attorney when it is given by the client to an agent for transmission to the attorney, and it is immaterial whether the agent is the agent of the attorney, the client, or both.” (City & County of S. F. v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227, 236 [ 231 P.2d 26 ].) “ ‘This of course includes communications through an interpreter, and also communications through a messenger or any other agent of transmission, as well as communicat…

green Laguna Beach County Water District v. Superior Court (2004)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

Proc., § 2018, subd. (a).) “Thus, work product protection ‘is not waived except by a disclosure wholly inconsistent with the purpose of the privilege, which is to safeguard the attorney’s work product and trial preparation. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (OXY Resources California v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 891 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ].) Here, the letters themselves make it clear Gokoo did not intend to waive protection.

green Litigation Trust for the Trust Beneficiaries of SNTL Corp. v. JP Morgan Chase (In re Superior National Insura… (2014)

Cited (see also) · Bankr. C.D. Cal. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion

Citizens for Ceres, 217 Cal.App.4th at 916-917 , 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 (referring to Cal. Evid.Code § 911); see also OXY Resources, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 891 , 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 .

green Duronslet v. Kamps (2012)

Cited · Cal. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

(Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, at p. 442, fn. omitted; see OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 890 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ] (OXY Resources).) “We review the trial court’s privilege determination under the substantial evidence standard.” (Roman Catholic Archbishop Diocese of Los Angeles, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 442.) “ ‘ “When the facts, or reasonable inferences from the facts, shown in support of or in opposition to the cl…

green People v. Super. Ct. (Credit One Bank) (2025)

Cited · Cal. Ct. App. · signal: see

(Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 (Costco); see Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316-317 [“‘[T]he issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary’”].) “‘Where there is a basis for the trial court’s ruling and the evidence supports it, a reviewing court will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court.’” (OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 1…

green Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2022)

Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see

See OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior 25 Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 890 (2004) (“While involvement of an unnecessary third person in 26 attorney-client communications destroys confidentiality, involvement of third persons to whom 27 disclosure is reasonably necessary to further the purpose of the legal consultation preserves 1 Padilla, have you acted as a translator for all of plaintiff’s communications with the Walkup 2 firm?” were improper.