72 California opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2026 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not 2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not | 6 | 8 |
Coito v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not 2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not | 5 | 9 |
Fellows v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017Section 2018.020 declares: 'It is the policy of the state to do both of the following: [¶] (a) Preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects of those cases. [¶](b) *390 Prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary's industry and efforts.' Toward that end, section 2018.030 provides: '(a) A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discove 2017Section 2018.020 declares: 'It is the policy of the state to do both of the following: [¶] (a) Preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects of those cases. [¶](b) *390 Prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary's industry and efforts.' Toward that end, section 2018.030 provides: '(a) A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discove | 4 | 4 |
Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not 2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not | 3 | 5 |
Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Countygreen2 sentences2015(Dowden v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 126, 135 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 ].) “[I]n camera inspection is the proper procedure to evaluate the applicability of the [attorney] work product doctrine to specific documents, and categorize whether each document should be given qualified or absolute protection.” (Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 121 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ] (Wellpoint).) The person claiming protection under the attorney work product doctrine bears the burden of proving the preliminary facts to show the doctrine applies. 2015(Dowden v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 126, 135 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 ].) “[I]n camera inspection is the proper procedure to evaluate the applicability of the [attorney] work product doctrine to specific documents, and categorize whether each document should be given qualified or absolute protection.” (Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 121 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ] (Wellpoint).) The person claiming protection under the attorney work product doctrine bears the burden of proving the preliminary facts to show the doctrine applies. | 3 | 4 |
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.green2 sentences2021The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders or other judicial intervention as may be justified.” (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 656-657.) 7 In Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807, 817 (Rico), our Supreme Court adopted this “State Fund rule,” describing it as a “fair and reasonable approach.” Rico extended the rule to apply not just to attorney-client privileged materials, but also materials protected by the attorney work product doctrine. 2017We do, however, hold that whenever a lawyer ascertains that he or she may have privileged attorney-client material that was inadvertently provided by another, that lawyer must notify the party entitled to the privilege of that fact.” (Ibid., italics added.) In Rico, the Supreme Court quoted the first two sentences from the foregoing quote as the State Fund rule, and extended the rule to materials protected by the attorney work product doctrine because the rule is “a fair and reasonable approach” that “holds attorneys to a reasonable standard of professional conduct when confidential or privile | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Kenneth Olsengreen2 sentences2018(See People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43 , 59, fn. 12, 177 Cal.Rptr. 458 , 634 P.2d 534 ; see also, e.g., United States v. Olsen (9th Cir. 2013) 704 F.3d 1172 , 1181 [contents of internal investigation were favorable to the defendant].) However, a prosecutor's work product is not discoverable under Brady unless the material contains underlying exculpatory facts . 2018(See People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43, 59, fn. 12 ; see also, e.g., United States v. Olsen (9th Cir. 2013) 704 F.3d 1172, 1181 [contents of internal investigation were favorable to the defendant].) However, a prosecutor’s work product is not discoverable under Brady unless the material contains underlying exculpatory facts. | 3 | 3 |
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018It applies as well to writings prepared by an attorney while acting in a nonlitigation capacity." ( County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 833 , 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 564 .) And "the attorney's absolute work product protection continues as to the contents of a writing delivered to a client in confidence." ( BP Alaska, supra, at p. 1253 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 .) The attorney work product privilege applies to exempt documents from Public Records Act requests. ( Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1176 , 1182, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 743 , 366 P.3d 996 ( Ardon ).) In Ardon 2018It applies as well to writings prepared by an attorney while acting in a nonlitigation capacity." ( County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 833 , 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 564 .) And "the attorney's absolute work product protection continues as to the contents of a writing delivered to a client in confidence." ( BP Alaska, supra, at p. 1253 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 .) The attorney work product privilege applies to exempt documents from Public Records Act requests. ( Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1176 , 1182, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 743 , 366 P.3d 996 ( Ardon ).) In Ardon | 2 | 4 |
People v. Colliegreen2 sentences1985The court was correct, however, in adopting the referee’s recommendations with respect to questions and documents about the so-called “prior investigation” conducted by the RSD. *754 Relying on People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 458 , 634 P.2d 534 , 23 A.L.R.4th 776 ], the City contends that any conversations between RSD investigators and attorneys at the city attorney’s office are protected under the attorney work-product doctrine. 1985The court was correct, however, in adopting the referee’s recommendations with respect to questions and documents about the so-called “prior investigation” conducted by the RSD. *754 Relying on People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 458 , 634 P.2d 534 , 23 A.L.R.4th 776 ], the City contends that any conversations between RSD investigators and attorneys at the city attorney’s office are protected under the attorney work-product doctrine. | 2 | 4 |
Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomleygreen2 sentences2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not 2000(Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 104 ].) The County claims that the IRC Task Force Report, Over-detention Reports and Logs are protected by the attorney work product privilege because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation, and at the direction of counsel. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gonzalesgreen2 sentences2024“We have long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 351 (Steskal); see People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales); People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 210 ; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 670 .) Such comments do not invade the attorney work product privilege. 2024“We have long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332 , 351 (Steskal); see People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales); People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 210 ; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 670 .) Such comments do not invade the attorney work product privilege. | 2 | 2 |
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015(County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 57, 64 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 324 ].) The purpose of the attorney work product doctrine is to preserve the rights of attorneys in the preparation of their cases and to prevent attorneys from taking advantage of the industry and creativity of opposing counsel. 2015(County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 57, 64 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 324 ].) The purpose of the attorney work product doctrine is to preserve the rights of attorneys in the preparation of their cases and to prevent attorneys from taking advantage of the industry and creativity of opposing counsel. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Combsgreen2 sentences2021Under such circumstances, the Constitution allows the prosecution to receive unredacted reports of the defendant’s examinations by defense mental experts, including any statements by the defendant to the examiners and any conclusions they have drawn therefrom.” (Maldonado v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1112, 1125 .) Once a defendant calls a defense expert to the stand, she waives “any protections that the attorney- client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and the privilege against self-incrimination afforded [her] regarding all matters that [her testifying experts] considered 2006Although we concluded that the defendant had forfeited the issue by failing to assert the attorney-client privilege at trial, we addressed the merits of the claim, stating that “[djefendant waived any protections that the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and the privilege against self-incrimination afforded him regarding all matters that [the testifying defense experts] considered or on which they relied, including Dr. Oshrin’s report.” (Combs, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 864.) We rejected the defendant’s argument that the defense experts could be cross-examined only | 2 | 2 |
| People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Superior Courtgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Cromergreen | 2 | 2 |
Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc.green2 sentences2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not 2018Muehlstein & Co. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969 , 977, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The attorney work product doctrine, codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, provides: "A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances." ( § 2018.030, subd. (a).) All other attorney work product "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, su | 1 | 5 |
City of Long Beach v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2021The attorney work product privilege was not at issue, and the disclosure of the individuals with whom the Governor met could have revealed the Governor’s thought process, whereas Curtis has already disclosed Doe 1 is a plaintiffs’-side attorney he consulted to hone his trial strategy. 23 Transport Indemnity Insurance (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004 [name of independent insurance adjuster who had investigated a prior industrial accident at defendant’s facility was not protected work product]; but see City of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65, 73 [compelled disclosure of the i 1993(City of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65, 73 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 468 ], quoting Code Civ. | 1 | 5 |
Hernandez v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018Code, § 1054.6 ["Neither the defendant nor the prosecuting attorney is required to disclose any materials or information which are work product as defined in ... the Code of Civil Procedure"].) "The opinions of experts who have not been designated as trial witnesses are protected by the attorney work product rule. [Citation.] Their identity also remains privileged until they are designated as trial witnesses." ( Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285 , 297, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 883 .) Nevertheless, a prosecutor has a constitutional duty to reveal exculpatory evidence-including otherwi 2018Code, § 1054.6 ["Neither the defendant nor the prosecuting attorney is required to disclose any materials or information which are work product as defined in ... the Code of Civil Procedure"].) "The opinions of experts who have not been designated as trial witnesses are protected by the attorney work product rule. [Citation.] Their identity also remains privileged until they are designated as trial witnesses." ( Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285 , 297, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 883 .) Nevertheless, a prosecutor has a constitutional duty to reveal exculpatory evidence-including otherwi | 1 | 4 |
Oxy Resources California LLC v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018In finding a waiver of the attorney work product privilege, the trial court misplaced its reliance on OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874 , 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ( OXY Resources ). 2018In finding a waiver of the attorney work product privilege, the trial court misplaced its reliance on OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874 , 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ( OXY Resources ). | 1 | 4 |
People v. Zamudiogreen2 sentences2024(See Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 352, 355.) The prosecutor did not argue that defendant had a duty to produce evidence, nor did he attempt to shift or lighten the state’s burden of proof. 2020Defendant argues that admitting this testimony violated the attorney work product doctrine, regardless of whether the work product was reduced to writing or not, because “despite the arguably contrary language of California’s absolute work product statute, the privilege also applies to non-written work product.” Disagreeing, the Attorney General argues that “[t]he prosecutor’s questions to Canty did Procedure former section 2018, subdivision (c), which then stated the absolute work product protection now stated in Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, subdivision (a).” (People v. Zamudio ( | 1 | 3 |
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2021Ordinarily, until a party’s consultants are designated to testify as expert witnesses, their opinions and reports are not discoverable. (§§ 2034.210, 2034.410, 2034.415; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 647 , 654–655 [an expert consultant’s work is protected by the attorney work product privilege, but once it appears reasonably certain the expert will testify as a witness on a material matter in dispute, the privilege no longer applies and the expert’s opinions are subject to discovery and disclosure].) The requirements for disclosure of expert witness information 2007(Complex Asbestos, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 596 .) *409 In Shadow Traffic , the court addressed disqualification under County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d 647 of an attorney who obtained information protected by the attorney work product privilege. | 1 | 3 |
Lohman v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017Section 2018.020 declares: 'It is the policy of the state to do both of the following: [¶] (a) Preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects of those cases. [¶](b) *390 Prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary's industry and efforts.' Toward that end, section 2018.030 provides: '(a) A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discove 2017Section 2018.020 declares: 'It is the policy of the state to do both of the following: [¶] (a) Preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects of those cases. [¶](b) *390 Prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary's industry and efforts.' Toward that end, section 2018.030 provides: '(a) A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discove | 1 | 3 |
People v. Steskalgreen2 sentences2024“We have long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 351 (Steskal); see People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales); People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 210 ; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 670 .) Such comments do not invade the attorney work product privilege. 2024“We have long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332 , 351 (Steskal); see People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales); People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 210 ; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 670 .) Such comments do not invade the attorney work product privilege. | 1 | 2 |
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Insurancegreen2 sentences2021The attorney work product privilege was not at issue, and the disclosure of the individuals with whom the Governor met could have revealed the Governor’s thought process, whereas Curtis has already disclosed Doe 1 is a plaintiffs’-side attorney he consulted to hone his trial strategy. 23 Transport Indemnity Insurance (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004 [name of independent insurance adjuster who had investigated a prior industrial accident at defendant’s facility was not protected work product]; but see City of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65, 73 [compelled disclosure of the i 2007“Nor can ‘the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts’ be concealed under the attorney work product rule .... [Citation.]” (Aerojet, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 1004 .) The defendants claimed no prejudice to their case as a result of the witness’s disclosure. | 1 | 2 |
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc.green2 sentences2021(Id. at pp. 817-818.) Rico describes the State Fund rule as “an objective standard” that asks “whether reasonably competent counsel, knowing the circumstances of the litigation, would have concluded the materials were privileged, how much review was reasonably necessary to draw that conclusion, and when counsel’s examination should have ended.” (Rico, at p. 818.) In State Fund, the Court of Appeal also addressed the circumstance where the materials do not “obviously” or “clearly” appear to be confidential or privileged: “[W]henever a lawyer ascertains that he or she may have privileged attorne 2017(State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 657 ; see Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 48 .) The rule also is designed to discourage unprofessional conduct (State Fund, at p. 657), and it recognizes that “„[a]n attorney has an obligation not only to protect his client‟s interests but also to respect the legitimate interests of fellow members of the bar, the judiciary, and the administration of justice.‟”4 (Rico, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 818 ; see Clark, at p. 48; State Fund, at p. 657.) The parties point to different portions of the foregoing quote from State Fund as the standard for determinin | 1 | 2 |
| Ardon v. City of Los Angelesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Dowden v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Williamson v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Roberts v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Petaluma v. Superior Court of Sonoma Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Caldecott v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Uber Techs., Inc. v. Google LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Teachers v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ledesmagreen | 1 | 1 |
| TRIPLE a MACHINE SHOP, INC v. State of Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court of Orange Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Armenta v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clark v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Coito v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not 2024Muehlstein & Co., Inc. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 , quoting BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-1254, fn. 4 ; see Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [“Work produced by an attorney’s agents and consultants, as well as the attorney’s own work product, is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.”].) Work product protection applies when an attorney acts in a litigation or “nonlitigation legal capacity.” (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 810, 815-816 .) Further, “the work product privilege is not | 1 | 9 |
City of Long Beach v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2021The attorney work product privilege was not at issue, and the disclosure of the individuals with whom the Governor met could have revealed the Governor’s thought process, whereas Curtis has already disclosed Doe 1 is a plaintiffs’-side attorney he consulted to hone his trial strategy. 23 Transport Indemnity Insurance (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004 [name of independent insurance adjuster who had investigated a prior industrial accident at defendant’s facility was not protected work product]; but see City of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65, 73 [compelled disclosure of the i 1993(City of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65, 73 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 468 ], quoting Code Civ. | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kallen v. Delug
green
2 sentences2026“The law is clear that ‘an attorney’s work product belongs absolutely to the client.’ [Citation.]” (John F. Matull & Associates, Inc. v. Cloutier (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1056 .) This principle applies even if “the attorney has [not] been paid for his [or her] services [citation].” (Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 940, 950 .) Water District clearly established its “ownership or right to possession of personal property [the Reports].” (Fremont Indemnity, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 119 .) 35 Eisenberg, however, argues at length that Water District did not satisfy this element of conve 2025“The law is clear that ‘an attorney’s work product belongs absolutely to the client.’ [Citation.]” (John F. Matull & Associates, Inc. v. Cloutier (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1056 .) This principle applies even if “the attorney has [not] been paid for his [or her] services [citation].” (Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 940, 950 .) Water District clearly established its “ownership or right to possession of personal property [the Reports].” (Fremont Indemnity, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 119 .) 33 Eisenberg, however, argues at length that Water District did not satisfy this element of conve | 3 | 1985–2026 |
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2024Prior to disclosing the reports and investigative materials, and upon a preliminary showing under Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, subdivision (a), the trial court may conduct an in camera review of the materials to determine “if some protection is warranted notwithstanding the waiver [of the attorney-client privilege].” (See Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 740 ; People v. Superior Court (Jones) (2021) 12 Cal.5th 348 , 366.) Upon completion of the review, the trial court shall disclose to Paknad any portions of the Smethurst investigations it deems to n 2016Code, § 952.) A confidential communication may include “a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship.” (Ibid.) In assessing whether a communication is privileged, the initial focus of the inquiry is on the “dominant purpose of the relationship” between attorney and client and not on the purpose served by the individual communication. ( Costco, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 739–740.) If a court determines that communications were made during the course of an attorney-client relationship, the communications, including any reports of factual material, wo | 3 | 2016–2024 |
In Re Jeanette H.
green
2 sentences1996(Rule 1420(a), (c), (e), (g), (h).) "The court is instructed under the rules to give substantial weight to the juvenile's need for stability and prompt resolution of custody status. [Citation.] The need for expeditious handling of juvenile matters is thus recognized and statutorily mandated. . . ." ( In re Jeanette H., supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 36 .) (4) Preliminarily, we question whether the legitimate purposes intended by the attorney work product doctrine would be served by allowing Tina's counsel to invoke that doctrine under the circumstances here. 1996(Rule 1420(a), (c), (e), (g), (h).) “The court is instructed under the rules to give substantial weight to the juvenile’s need for stability and prompt resolution of custody status. [Citation.] The need for expeditious handling of juvenile matters is thus recognized and statutorily mandated. . . .” (In re Jeanette H., supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 36 .) Preliminarily, we question whether the legitimate purposes intended by the attorney work product doctrine would be served by allowing Tina’s counsel to invoke that doctrine under the circumstances here. | 3 | 1992–1996 |
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp.
green
2 sentences2026“The law is clear that ‘an attorney’s work product belongs absolutely to the client.’ [Citation.]” (John F. Matull & Associates, Inc. v. Cloutier (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1056 .) This principle applies even if “the attorney has [not] been paid for his [or her] services [citation].” (Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 940, 950 .) Water District clearly established its “ownership or right to possession of personal property [the Reports].” (Fremont Indemnity, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 119 .) 35 Eisenberg, however, argues at length that Water District did not satisfy this element of conve 2025“The law is clear that ‘an attorney’s work product belongs absolutely to the client.’ [Citation.]” (John F. Matull & Associates, Inc. v. Cloutier (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1056 .) This principle applies even if “the attorney has [not] been paid for his [or her] services [citation].” (Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 940, 950 .) Water District clearly established its “ownership or right to possession of personal property [the Reports].” (Fremont Indemnity, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 119 .) 33 Eisenberg, however, argues at length that Water District did not satisfy this element of conve | 2 | 2025–2026 |
John F. Matull & Associates, Inc. v. Cloutier
green
2 sentences2026“The law is clear that ‘an attorney’s work product belongs absolutely to the client.’ [Citation.]” (John F. Matull & Associates, Inc. v. Cloutier (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1056 .) This principle applies even if “the attorney has [not] been paid for his [or her] services [citation].” (Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 940, 950 .) Water District clearly established its “ownership or right to possession of personal property [the Reports].” (Fremont Indemnity, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 119 .) 35 Eisenberg, however, argues at length that Water District did not satisfy this element of conve 2025“The law is clear that ‘an attorney’s work product belongs absolutely to the client.’ [Citation.]” (John F. Matull & Associates, Inc. v. Cloutier (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1056 .) This principle applies even if “the attorney has [not] been paid for his [or her] services [citation].” (Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 940, 950 .) Water District clearly established its “ownership or right to possession of personal property [the Reports].” (Fremont Indemnity, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 119 .) 33 Eisenberg, however, argues at length that Water District did not satisfy this element of conve | 2 | 2025–2026 |
People v. Stevens
green
2 sentences2024“We have long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 351 (Steskal); see People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales); People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 210 ; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 670 .) Such comments do not invade the attorney work product privilege. 2024“We have long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332 , 351 (Steskal); see People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales); People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 210 ; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 670 .) Such comments do not invade the attorney work product privilege. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2024“We have long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 351 (Steskal); see People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales); People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 210 ; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 670 .) Such comments do not invade the attorney work product privilege. 2024“We have long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332 , 351 (Steskal); see People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales); People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 210 ; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 670 .) Such comments do not invade the attorney work product privilege. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| National Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court green | 2 | 1988–2003 |
| Kizer v. Sulnick green | 2 | 1991–2003 |
| Wardius v. Oregon green | 2 | 1992–1992 |
| Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21 v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| League of California Cities v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| DP Pham LLC v. Cheadle green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Maldonado v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| SCEcorp v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Joyce v. Simi Valley Unified School District green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Venhaus v. Shultz green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court of City & Cnty. of S.F. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| California Oak Foundation v. County of Tehama green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Roberts v. City of Palmdale green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Landry v. Berryessa Union School District green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Titmas v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Roland v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.