IAR Systems v. Super. Ct.
A149087M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- IAR (victim) sued its former CEO Shehayed in civil court for alleged decade-long embezzlement; Valla & Associates represented IAR in the civil action.
- During the civil litigation, IAR/Valla provided information to Foster City PD and the San Mateo District Attorney; soon thereafter criminal charges were filed against Shehayed.
- Valla communicated with law enforcement about evidentiary issues (e.g., citations on a ratification defense), forwarded a highlighted deposition, and IAR retained an accountant (Smith) who produced work that later was used at the preliminary hearing.
- Defendant moved to compel Valla to disclose allegedly exculpatory materials under Brady v. Maryland, arguing Valla was part of the prosecution team; the trial court so found and ordered Valla to comply.
- Valla and IAR petitioned for writ relief; the Court of Appeal reviewed whether (1) Brady obligations can be imposed directly on a private victim’s counsel and (2) whether Valla was part of the prosecution team such that the prosecution must search Valla’s files.
- The Court reversed: Brady duties cannot be imposed directly on Valla, and on the record Valla was not a prosecution-team member whose knowledge or files were imputable to the prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Valla can be ordered directly to comply with Brady to disclose exculpatory materials | Valla assisted prosecution and so should be compelled to disclose directly | Brady duty is nondelegable and belongs to prosecution; private counsel shouldn’t be directly bound by Brady | Court: Brady duties are imposed on the prosecution, not directly on private counsel; trial court erred to the extent it required Valla itself to comply |
| Whether Valla is part of the prosecution team (imputing its knowledge/files to prosecution) | Valla coordinated with prosecutors (shared citations, forwarded deposition, helped secure accountant) and thus acted on government’s behalf | Valla acted for its client IAR as victim’s counsel; communications were routine victim–prosecutor cooperation, not agency/control by prosecution | Court: On these facts, Valla was not a member of the prosecution team; imputation not warranted |
| Whether communications (legal citations/ratification analysis) converted Valla into a government agent | Such sharing aided prosecution strategy and gave prosecutors material they lacked | Sharing was limited (handful of citations, ~5–10 minutes) and derived from Valla’s civil-case work for IAR | Court: The shared materials were minimal and not the sort of directed legal assistance that establishes a prosecution-team relationship |
| Whether delegation of forensic-accountant hiring made Valla/provided accountant part of prosecution team | Prosecutor asked victim to obtain an auditor; the accountant’s work assisted prosecution at preliminary hearing | IAR retained and paid the accountant; accountant worked independently for IAR and was not under prosecutor control | Court: Use of victim-retained accountant does not, by itself, make Valla or the accountant part of the prosecution team |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishing prosecution’s duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to investigative agencies acting on the prosecution’s behalf)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (defining materiality standard for Brady)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady-related principles on disclosure and materiality)
- In re Brown, 17 Cal.4th 873 (discussing nondelegable nature of prosecutor’s Brady duty)
- People v. Barrett, 80 Cal.App.4th 1305 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose extends to persons/agencies used to assist prosecution)
- United States v. Meregildo, 920 F.Supp.2d 434 (S.D.N.Y.) (totality-of-circumstances test for when a non-governmental actor is imputed to be part of the prosecution team)
- People v. Uribe, 162 Cal.App.4th 1457 (example of when a third-party examiner was part of prosecution team based on control and investigative role)