Thompson v. Superior Court CA4/2
E085018
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Talisha Thompson is the plaintiff in a civil personal injury lawsuit after being struck by a San Bernardino County Sheriff deputy’s vehicle, causing significant spinal injury.
- During discovery, real parties (defendants) asked Thompson whether her attorneys advised her on where to seek medical treatment.
- Thompson’s counsel objected, asserting attorney-client privilege, and Thompson did not answer the question.
- Defendants moved to compel an answer and sought sanctions, relying mainly on Qaadir v. Figueroa, arguing the information was relevant to her medical liens.
- The trial court granted the motion to compel Thompson to answer, found no privilege, and imposed $1,819.50 in sanctions; Thompson sought writ relief.
- The appellate court granted Thompson's writ, vacated the trial court’s orders compelling disclosure and imposing sanctions, and directed entry of a new order denying the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney-client privilege covers referral advice | Privilege covers attorney's advice on medical referrals | Qaadir supports disclosure as relevant to lien issues | Privilege absolutely applies; disclosure not allowed |
| Whether trial court erred in compelling disclosure | Compelling answer violates statutory privilege | Referral info is relevant to reasonableness of liens | Trial court erred; order vacated |
| Whether sanctions were proper | Sanctions improper where privilege assertion justified | Plaintiff delayed and obstructed discovery | Sanctions improper; order vacated |
| Applicability of Qaadir v. Figueroa | Qaadir did not address privilege | Qaadir requires disclosure in similar circumstances | Qaadir inapposite; privilege trumps |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Superior Court, 55 Cal.App.4th 1546 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (attorney-client privilege broadly protects legal advice in civil, not just criminal, matters)
- OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 874 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (writ relief available where discovery order threatens privilege)
- Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 591 (Cal. 1984) (attorney-client privilege is broadly protected and exceptions are narrowly tailored)
- Titmas v. Superior Court, 87 Cal.App.4th 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (legal advice in anticipation of litigation protected by privilege)
- Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 110 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (privilege covers legal advice, even without pending litigation)
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009) (attorney-client privilege is absolute and courts cannot create exceptions)