Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Velasquezgreen2 sentences2018(Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 396 .) The privilege is also to be strictly construed “where the relationship is not clearly established.” (People v. Velasquez (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 319, 327, fn. 4 .) 13 “When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege it is incumbent upon that party to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists. [Citation.] Once the foundational facts have been presented, i.e., that a communication has been made ‘in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidenc 2018(Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 396 .) The privilege is also to be strictly construed “where the relationship is not clearly established.” (People v. Velasquez (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 319, 327, fn. 4 .) 13 “When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege it is incumbent upon that party to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists. [Citation.] Once the foundational facts have been presented, i.e., that a communication has been made ‘in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidenc | 2 | 2 |
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.green2 sentences2024“When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege it is incumbent upon that party to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists.” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 639 .) On that party’s prima facie showing “that a communication has been made ‘in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . 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,’ or that an exception exists.” (Ibid.) A defend 2018(Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 396 .) The privilege is also to be strictly construed “where the relationship is not clearly established.” (People v. Velasquez (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 319, 327, fn. 4 .) 13 “When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege it is incumbent upon that party to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists. [Citation.] Once the foundational facts have been presented, i.e., that a communication has been made ‘in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidenc | 1 | 4 |
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLCgreen1 sentence2022N.Y. 2003) 220 F.R.D. 212, 216-217 [ruling defendant reasonably anticipated litigation because internal company e-mails about the plaintiff were labeled attorney- client privilege and most people in the company who were associated with the plaintiff recognized the possibility she might sue].) When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product protection over a document that had been previously entered in a privilege log, courts may consider the act of entry as evidence the party had already identified a potential claim and had reasonably anticipated it would result | 1 | 1 |
Venture Law Group v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2015Analysis “In general, when a party asserts the attorney-client privilege, that party has the burden of showing the preliminary facts necessary to support the privilege. [Citation.] The necessary preliminary facts include the existence of the attorney-client relationship at the time the confidential communication was made. [Citation.] After this burden is met, or where there is no dispute concerning the preliminary facts, the burden shifts to the party opposing the privilege to show either the claimed privilege does not apply, an exception exists, or there has been an express or implied waiver. | 1 | 1 |
Mahoney v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1997(Mahoney v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 937, 940 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 425 ].) Once the foundational facts have been presented, i.e., that a communication has been made “in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . 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,” or that an exception exists. 1997(Mahoney v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 937, 940 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 425 ].) Once the foundational facts have been presented, i.e., that a communication has been made “in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . 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,” or that an exception exists. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2018(Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 396 .) The privilege is also to be strictly construed “where the relationship is not clearly established.” (People v. Velasquez (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 319, 327, fn. 4 .) 13 “When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege it is incumbent upon that party to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists. [Citation.] Once the foundational facts have been presented, i.e., that a communication has been made ‘in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidenc 2018(Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 396 .) The privilege is also to be strictly construed “where the relationship is not clearly established.” (People v. Velasquez (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 319, 327, fn. 4 .) 13 “When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege it is incumbent upon that party to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists. [Citation.] Once the foundational facts have been presented, i.e., that a communication has been made ‘in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidenc | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
green
1 sentence2024“When a party asserts the attorney-client privilege it is incumbent upon that party to prove the preliminary fact that a privilege exists.” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 639 .) On that party’s prima facie showing “that a communication has been made ‘in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . 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,’ or that an exception exists.” (Ibid.) A defend | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.