Ardon v. City of Los Angeles
62 Cal. 4th 1176
Cal.2016Background
- Ardon sued the City of Los Angeles over a tax; during discovery the City withheld 27 documents as attorney-client or work-product privileged and filed a privilege log.
- Years later Ardon’s counsel requested related records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA); the City’s administrative office produced a set of responsive documents, inadvertently including three documents that the City had previously claimed privileged in litigation.
- Ardon’s counsel kept the materials and informed City; City demanded return and moved in superior court to compel return and to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel; the trial court and Court of Appeal held the CPRA production waived the privileges.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Government Code section 6254.5’s waiver rule applies to inadvertent disclosures under the CPRA.
- The Supreme Court held that section 6254.5’s waiver provision applies to intentional, voluntary disclosures (selective disclosures) and does not waive privilege when the disclosure was inadvertent; the Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure under Gov. Code §6254.5 waives privileges when the disclosure was inadvertent | Any disclosure under §6254.5 (including inadvertent) waives exemptions/privileges | §6254.5 applies to intentional/knowing disclosures; inadvertent release does not waive privilege | Inadvertent disclosure under the CPRA does not waive attorney-client or work-product privileges; waiver requires voluntary/knowing disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Black Panther Party v. Kehoe, 42 Cal.App.3d 645 (1974) (selective disclosures by government can convert exempt records into public records)
- State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644 (1999) (inadvertent disclosure in discovery does not constitute waiver of attorney-client privilege; recipient should notify sender and refrain from reviewing privileged material)
- Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal.4th 807 (2007) (endorsing the State Fund rule and extending it to work-product material)
- Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 591 (1984) (purpose of attorney-client privilege to promote candid communications)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (establishing work-product protection to permit attorneys to prepare with privacy)
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363 (1993) (recognizing privilege interests for local government communications with counsel)
- Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino Air Quality Management Dist., 42 Cal.App.4th 436 (1996) (trade-secret filing with public agency can become public; cited for the principle that intentional agency disclosure can waive protection)