Kerner v. Superior Court
206 Cal. App. 4th 84
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Widom sues Stockwell firm and members after his termination following Kerner's domestic violence accusations.
- Kerner alleged communications and privileges issues; dispute over production of documents and deposition questions regarding attorney-client privilege.
- Widom seeks discovery of defendants’ financial condition under Civ. Code, § 3295(c) to support punitive damages claims.
- Trial court adopted referee’s findings, granting disclosure and restricting evidence, including a motion in limine to exclude domestic violence evidence.
- California appellate panel sua sponte vacates/prunes several orders and remands for further proceedings on privilege waiver and other issues.
- Key rulings: privilege waiver analysis, existence of Kerner-Woolverton attorney-client relationship, improper reliance on factual innocence for collateral estoppel, and reversal of net worth discovery and deposition rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of attorney-client privilege | Kerner did not waive privilege; defer to proper objections. | Kerner waived by failure to timely object after referee’s report. | Waiver must be evaluated with explicit findings; remand required to determine waiver. |
| Existence of attorney-client relationship Kerner–Woolverton | Kerner treated Woolverton as her attorney; privilege applies. | No formal attorney-client relationship; privilege not applicable. | There was an attorney-client relationship; depositions to be reconsidered. |
| Net worth discovery and punitive damages standard | Civil Code § 3295(c) allows discovery if substantial probability of punitive damages. | Evidence, including privileged communications and factual innocence findings, invalid for this standard. | Grant of net worth discovery reversed; require reevaluation consistent with privilege and innocence findings. |
| Collateral estoppel and privity | Stockwell firm should be bound by family/criminal/civil determinations due to common interests. | Attorney-client relationship does not establish privity for collateral estoppel. | No privity; further remand to address collateral estoppel grounds and inadmissible factual-innocence evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 475 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard; attorney-client privilege framework)
- Calvert v. State Bar, 54 Cal.3d 765 (Cal. 1991) (waiver of privilege when holder fails to claim it with opportunity to object)
- People v. Gionis, 9 Cal.4th 1196 (Cal. 1995) (creation of attorney-client relationship; broad scope of privilege)
- Glade v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 738 (Cal. App. 1978) (nonappearance does not automatically waive privilege)
- Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, 32 Cal.4th 350 (Cal. 2004) (official-proceeding privilege breadth)
- Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2007) (official-proceeding privilege; breadth and purposes)
- Jabro v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. App. 2002) (substantial probability standard for punitive-damages discovery)
- Penal Code provisions on factual innocence, not applicable () (see opinion for statutory discussion; not a stand-alone case)