IAR Systems v. Super. Ct.
A149087
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 5, 2017Background
- IAR (victim) sued former CEO Shehayed in civil court for embezzlement; Valla & Associates represented IAR and shared documents with police and the DA after reporting suspected crimes.
- The DA filed criminal charges; IAR (through Valla) provided a forensic accountant and discovery materials used by law enforcement.
- Defendant subpoenaed Valla for documents and moved for a Brady hearing to determine whether Valla was part of the prosecution team and therefore required to disclose material exculpatory evidence despite privileges.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Valla was part of the prosecution team and ordered Valla to comply with Brady disclosures.
- Valla and IAR petitioned for writ relief; the Court of Appeal reviewed whether Brady duties can be imposed directly on Valla and whether Valla was a member of the prosecution team.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private law firm (Valla) can be directly obligated to make Brady disclosures | Valla: Brady duties are nondelegable and belong to the prosecution; a private firm should not be required to respond directly to Brady demands | Defendant: Trial court can require cooperating private parties to disclose Brady material directly | Held: Error to impose Brady duties directly on Valla; Brady obligations belong to the prosecution (nondelegable) |
| Whether Valla (victim's counsel) is part of the prosecution team for Brady imputation | Valla: As victim’s counsel acting for IAR, it was not acting under DA control and thus not a prosecution-team member | Defendant: Valla cooperated sufficiently (shared citations, coordinated accountant) to be deemed part of the team | Held: Valla is not part of the prosecution team; its contacts were routine victim–prosecutor cooperation, not government control |
| Whether sharing legal research, coordinating an accountant, and providing deposition materials suffice for imputation | Valla: These actions were performed for IAR in the civil case, not at the DA’s direction; minimal assistance does not create agency | Defendant: Those specific interactions show active assistance to the prosecution | Held: Those interactions were benign and insufficient—no evidence DA controlled or directed Valla’s work; imputation not warranted |
| Whether trial court’s remedy intruded on attorney–client/work-product protections | Valla: Finding Valla a team member threatens client rights and victim constitutional rights to confer with the prosecutor | Defendant: Fair-trial interests justify extending Brady reach | Held: Court reversed to avoid undue intrusion on client loyalty and victim rights; prosecution remains responsible for locating Brady material if under its control |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishing due process duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (materiality standard for suppressed evidence)
- In re Brown, 17 Cal.4th 873 (prosecution bears responsibility for noncompliance by those acting on its behalf)
- United States v. Meregildo, 920 F.Supp.2d 434 (totality-of-circumstances framework for determining prosecution-team membership)
- People v. Barrett, 80 Cal.App.4th 1305 (prosecutor must search for exculpatory evidence held by agencies used to assist prosecution)