Coito v. Superior Court
54 Cal. 4th 480
| Cal. | 2012Background
- California work product privilege codified at §2018.030; absolute protection for writings revealing attorney impressions, etc.; qualified protection for other work product.
- Dispute over two items: (i) audio-recorded witness interviews conducted by investigators for defendant's counsel; (ii) identity of witnesses from whom statements were obtained.
- Trial court held interviews absolutely protected and witness-identity information protected; Court of Appeal reversed, directing production.
- California Supreme Court holds witness-interview records are at least qualifiedly protected; may be absolute if disclosure reveals attorney’s impressions; case-by-case determination.
- Identity of witnesses is not automatically protected; requires showing that disclosure would reveal attorney’s tactics or give undue advantage; remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recorded witness interviews are protected as work product | Coito argues interviews are work product | DWR argues no protection beyond nonderivative material | Interviews are entitled to at least qualified protection; may be absolute with proper showing of impressions |
| Whether witness-identities from whom statements were obtained are protected | List of witnesses should be discoverable | Disclosure would reveal attorney’s tactics; protected | Not automatically protected; requires showing; remand for determination of protection level |
| Proper treatment of form interrogatory No. 12.3 regarding statements | Responses should be compelled for information on statements | Response may reveal work product | Usually answerable, but protected if it reveals attorney’s tactics; in camera review may apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (pub. policy of work product; privacy essential to preparation)
- Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961) (pre-Governor amendments; work product limitations questioned)
- Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.App.4th 214 (Cal. App. 1996) (recorded statements; discusses privilege scope)
- Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal.4th 807 (Cal. 2007) (notes versus statements; extent of protection when intertwined with impressions)
- Fellows v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.3d 55 (Cal. App. 1980) (derivative vs nonderivative material)
- Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 87 Cal.App.3d 626 (Cal. App. 1979) (statements as nonderivative; work product debate)
- Kadelbach v. Amaral, 31 Cal.App.3d 814 (Cal. App. 1973) (early position on statements and work product)
- Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 110 (Cal. App. 1997) (notes on work product protection scope)