opponent claim in California

2026On remand, the trial court must conduct further proceedings as are necessary to allow the City to lay the proper foundation for the assertion of the privilege, and for the People and/or Philips to demonstrate that the privilege does not apply or that a statutory exception exists. 9 Costco instructs that the party claiming the attorney-client privilege “has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citation.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie

2025Chadbourne).) “[T]o determine whether a communication is privileged, the focus of the inquiry is the dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication.” (Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 51 .) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the oppon

2024“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

2023General Legal Principles and Standard of Review Generally, “[t]he attorney-client privilege, set forth at Evidence Code section 954, confers a privilege on the client ‘to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer.’ ” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732 (Costco Wholesale Corp.).) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] On

2024To obtain disclosure, the opponent must rebut the statutory presumption of confidentiality set forth in section 917: ‘Whenever 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 … psychotherapist–patient … 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.’ ” (Story v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1015 (Story).) Relevant here, however, “[a]lternativ

2024To obtain disclosure, the opponent must rebut the statutory presumption of confidentiality set forth in section 917: ‘Whenever 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 … psychotherapist–patient … 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.’ ” (Story v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1015 (Story).) Relevant here, however, “[a]lternativ

2003(Mahoney v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 937, 940-941 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 425 ].) “Preliminary facts” means the existence of a psychotherapist-patient relationship, “that is, that the person [the claimant] consulted was a ‘ “psychotherapist” ’ within the meaning of. . . section 1010, and [the claimant] was a ‘ “patient” ’ within the meaning of . . . section 1011.” (Ibid.) *1015 Once the claimant establishes the preliminary facts of a psychotherapist-patient relationship, the burden of proof shifts to the opponent of the privilege.

2003(Mahoney v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 937, 940-941 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 425 ].) “Preliminary facts” means the existence of a psychotherapist-patient relationship, “that is, that the person [the claimant] consulted was a ‘ “psychotherapist” ’ within the meaning of. . . section 1010, and [the claimant] was a ‘ “patient” ’ within the meaning of . . . section 1011.” (Ibid.) *1015 Once the claimant establishes the preliminary facts of a psychotherapist-patient relationship, the burden of proof shifts to the opponent of the privilege.

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

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

2016(Ibid.; see fn. 3, ante.) However, "[i]f the facts show that the communication was not intended to be kept in confidence the communication is not privileged." (People v. Carter (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 748, 752 (Carter).) "A communication between married persons is 13 '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 (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 220 ; Evid.

1992Code, § 917; see People v. Carter (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 748, 752 [ 110 Cal. Rptr. 324 ].) (7) "The [marital privilege] may be asserted to prevent testimony by anyone including eavesdroppers." ( North v. Superior Court, supra, 8 Cal.3d 301, 310 , italics omitted.) (8a) Ford urges that the December 20 conversation was "confidential" within the meaning of Evidence Code section 980.

2015Code, § 952.) “[T]he privilege applies not only to communications made in anticipation of litigation, but also to legal advice when no litigation is threatened.” (Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 371 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 853 P.2d 496 ].) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication *989 made in the course of an attorney-client relationship.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 , 219 P.3d 736 ] (Costco).) If the party claimi

2015Code, § 952.) “[T]he privilege applies not only to communications made in anticipation of litigation, but also to legal advice when no litigation is threatened.” (Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 371 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 853 P.2d 496 ].) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication *989 made in the course of an attorney-client relationship.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 , 219 P.3d 736 ] (Costco).) If the party claimi

2010“We review the trial court’s privilege determination under the substantial evidence standard.” (Roman Catholic Archbishop, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 442.) The opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential.

2010"We review the trial court's privilege determination under the substantial evidence standard." ( Roman Catholic Archbishop, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 442.) The opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential.

2006The presumption of innocence The "presumption of innocence" — a "shorthand description of the right of the accused to `remain inactive and secure'" until the People have met their burden of proof — is inherent in the reasonable doubt standard. ( Taylor v. Kentucky (1978) 436 U.S. 478, 483 , 98 S.Ct. 1930 , 56 L.Ed.2d 468 ( Taylor ); see ibid. ["`[T]o say . . . that the opponent of a claim or charge is presumed not to be guilty is to say in another form that the proponent of the claim or charge must evidence it'" in accordance with the requisite burden of proof].) Yet, while the presumption of

2006The presumption of innocence The "presumption of innocence" — a "shorthand description of the right of the accused to `remain inactive and secure'" until the People have met their burden of proof — is inherent in the reasonable doubt standard. ( Taylor v. Kentucky (1978) 436 U.S. 478, 483 , 98 S.Ct. 1930 , 56 L.Ed.2d 468 ( Taylor ); see ibid. ["`[T]o say . . . that the opponent of a claim or charge is presumed not to be guilty is to say in another form that the proponent of the claim or charge must evidence it'" in accordance with the requisite burden of proof].) Yet, while the presumption of

1980Under California law, a client has a statutory privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer (§ 950 et seq.). 5 A communication between such persons “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” (§ 917; North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301, 310 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ]).

1980Under California law, a client has a statutory privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer (§ 950 et seq.). 5 A communication between such persons “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” (§ 917; North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301, 310 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ]).

2024“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

2021(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 645 [Discussing application of the crime- fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege] (State Farm).) “A communication between married 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.’ ” (Von Villas, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 220 ; § 917.) However, the marital communication privilege is waived if the holders of the privilege, without coercion, have “disclosed a significant part of the comm

2025Chadbourne).) “[T]o determine whether a communication is privileged, the focus of the inquiry is the dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication.” (Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 51 .) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the oppon

2025Chadbourne).) “[T]o determine whether a communication is privileged, the focus of the inquiry is the dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication.” (Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 51 .) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the oppon

2019Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 729 .) Once the party claiming the privilege "establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, 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 the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply." (Costco, at p. 733; § 917, subd. (a).) Here, there is no dispute that Gilleon had an attorney-client relationship with Hoover.

2018Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723 , 729, 36 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 388 P.2d 700 .) Once the party claiming the privilege "establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is *611 presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply." ( Costco , at p. 733, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 , 219 P.3d 736 ; § 917, subd. (a).) Here, there is no dispute that Gilleon had an attorn

2021(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 645 [Discussing application of the crime- fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege] (State Farm).) “A communication between married 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.’ ” (Von Villas, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 220 ; § 917.) However, the marital communication privilege is waived if the holders of the privilege, without coercion, have “disclosed a significant part of the comm

2016(Ibid.; see fn. 3, ante.) However, "[i]f the facts show that the communication was not intended to be kept in confidence the communication is not privileged." (People v. Carter (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 748, 752 (Carter).) "A communication between married persons is 13 '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 (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 220 ; Evid.

2023General Legal Principles and Standard of Review Generally, “[t]he attorney-client privilege, set forth at Evidence Code section 954, confers a privilege on the client ‘to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer.’ ” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732 (Costco Wholesale Corp.).) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] On

2023(Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 (Citizens of Ceres); Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 499 (Coito).) Generally, the party seeking disclosure must show 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).) “We apply the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing discovery rulings.” (City of Petaluma, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 1031 ; Costco Wholesale Corp., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733 .) However, “[t]he abuse of discreti

2023(Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 (Citizens of Ceres); Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 499 (Coito).) Generally, the party seeking disclosure must show 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).) “We apply the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing discovery rulings.” (City of Petaluma, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 1031 ; Costco Wholesale Corp., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733 .) However, “[t]he abuse of discreti

2022Code, § 917, subd. (a)4 [“a communication made in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client . . . relationship . . . 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”]; Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [“the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply”]; Manela v. Superior Court (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1146 (Manel

2021(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 645 [Discussing application of the crime- fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege] (State Farm).) “A communication between married 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.’ ” (Von Villas, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 220 ; § 917.) However, the marital communication privilege is waived if the holders of the privilege, without coercion, have “disclosed a significant part of the comm